Good discussion. To understand consciousness, you must first understand “what” is experiencing consciousness, what is conscious. What is the “I” in “I am conscious?” One can hypothesize about the properties of consciousness, but not knowing what is conscious and also the social and environmental aspects of consciousness, a complete theory of consciousness will continue to be illusive.
In Hidden Spring, Mark Solms makes the case that consciousness is affect, which is a broader and encompasses, but is not limited to emotion, and includes mood and the feeling of awareness, as well as the feeling of self (meta) awareness.
The points he makes about the importance of the brain mechanisms responsible for language in conscious awareness mirror closely the similar points made by Noam Chomsky in one of his interviews on CTT. I think calling these brain areas the language centres potentially under-plays their importance. If they give us our ability to conceptualise physical and conceptual relationships hierarchically, and as I suspect also play a role in our ability to reason about complex procedure such as tool making and technological processes, then they play a vital role in a lot of activities and behaviours beyond just language. Possibly higher reasoning in general. It may be that higher mammals may have a first person experience of the world, but lack much ability to value or reflect on that experience, or appreciate it in others.
2:40 "My idea about emotional consciousness of feelings is that there's a 3rd ingredient that's added in, the fact that emotion systems in the brain are active, & this is added in in 2 ways." What Joseph LeDoux is describing throughout this interview is correlation, not causation. The above passage I cite is merely the central correlation that purportedly accounts for *emotion* but it still does not explain causation. It's analogous to saying that a car's engine causes the car to move, but declaring that it has an engine does not explain the relationship between the physics and the technology required to move said car. So what are the natural laws required to move said brain? We are none the wiser with this outline of correlations. Two essential elements of top-down causation, imho, are missing: 1. Entanglement; 2. Association. 1. ENTANGLEMENT So why should entanglement be significant? Let's take a closer look. DNA entanglement in the neuro-plastic brain. A colony of DNA-entangled neurons must be way more efficient than a colony of unentangled neurons. The simulation that substantiates this is the modern, human-plastic city, where telecommunications simulates the effects of entanglement. Telecommunications, in effect, provides every person in the human-plastic city with immediate access to collective information, to thus enable the city to act as a giant brain. Cities form into functional specializations, just as brains do. Likewise, neurons require immediate access to collective information in order to make the right choices, appropriate to the functioning of the brain. The evidence? A modern city providing humans with immediate access to collective cultural information, via telecommunications, survives and thrives as a unity, just as a brain does. The appeal of DNA entanglement is that it stands to provide solutions to the biggest problems revolving around 1) entropy, 2) binding, 3) mind-body unity. What's it like to be a bat, a fish, an ant or a bee? That's the mind-body problem, and a DNA-entanglement thesis might be an essential first step in providing the answer, because *bodies wire neuro-plastic DNA-entangled brains* . My engineer's (B.Eng) hunch is that some manner of entanglement *must* be factored in to explain the top-down causation of consciousness, with my city metaphor providing the justification. This approach explains not just the correlation, but also the causation... yes, the amygdala is important in emotion-formation (like fear at 2:56), but it's not the "cause" of it. Entanglement, in synthesis with association, comes closer to understanding causation, imho. 2. ASSOCIATION AND ILLUSION I've commented before on CTT, on the relevance of the semiotic and biosemiotic theories CS Peirce and J von Uexküll. Motivation,, association and habituation provide a robust framework for understanding the relevance of motivation (as affect, feeling or emotion), association (relevant to experiences that wire the neuroplastic brain) and habituation (as etched into the brain's functional specializations). This semiotic narrative suggests a possible axiomatic framework for the life sciences, on a par in its significance with the axiomatic framework provided for classical physics by Isaac Newton. More recently, I've commented on the relationship between association and illusion (2 days ago, Noam Chomsky on the Big Questions, Part 4, Closer To Truth Chats). This relationship with illusion opens up exciting new possibilities to explore, extending all the way down to the level of matter (particularly if we factor in cube-root scaling at the subatomic levels). ALL associations relate to meaning, and the creation of illusion. Optical illusions abound on the internet, only because they are easy to reproduce on monitors. But ultimately *all* associations across *all* the senses (including hearing, taste, smell, touch) are illusions. They relate to combining concepts to create entirely new concepts that are quite distinct from the concepts from which they are assembled. The key to understanding these recombinations of associations is *meaning* (or feeling/affect, if you will). TO SUMMARIZE: 1) A person's experience with a leaf (to take LeDoux's example) is an association with the brain collective, including its memories and its mind-body functions and specializations. It doesn't make sense to isolate particular brain functional specializations in order to explain causation. That approach is stuck in the narrative of classic bottom-up causation, and the best it can hope to do is describe correlations. On the question of causation, however, the only valid response to these observed correlations is... so what? We need to factor in top-down causation, and thus, DNA-entanglement and association. 2) Buddhists famously make references to illusion. Here, their idea is that the mind's projections onto reality are illusions. This merits further exploration, particularly in the context of association. Maybe Buddhists have a point. Maybe they've already paved a way to something fundamental, something that's been blocked to us because of our confinement to our narratives in bottom-up causation. 3) I get it that people might take issue with my DNA-entanglement conjecture. Decoherence in warm, wet environments and all that. But here's the problem. I don't believe in god as first cause. I don't accept souls as an explanation. I don't accept any kind of woo. But I also categorically reject the mainstream's failure to take entropy seriously. There *must* be some way to account for how the brain and life are able to survive, persisting across space and time. And if my belief in DNA entanglement is dismissed as unsubstantiated conjecture, then so be it. I'm placing all my eggs in the DNA-entanglement conjecture because there is nothing else that works. There just isn't. And until there is, I'm sticking with it. There does, however, exist circumstantial evidence for DNA entanglement because there exists evidence of correlations between neurons that have not been otherwise accounted for (*Apostolou & Kintzios, 2018 and **Pizzi et al, 2004). *Apostolou, T. & Kintzios, S. (2018). Cell-to-cell communication: Evidence of near-instantaneous distant, non-chemical communication between neuronal (human SK-N-SH neuroblastoma) cells by using a novel bioelectric biosensor. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 25(9-10), pp. 62-74. **Pizzi, R., Fantasia, A., Gelain, F., Rosetti, D., & Vescovi, A. (2004). Non-local correlations between separated neural networks. In E. Donkor, A. Pirick, & H. Brandt (Eds.), Quantum Information and Computation (Proceedings of SPIE), 5436(II), 107-117.
@@tonyatkinson2210 Entropy. More specifically, Shannon entropy as opposed to thermodynamic (Boltzman) entropy. I should correct you though... I'm not saying to exclude bottom-up causation, but to factor in top-down causation. Bottom-up causation merely constrains what the top-down can command. Examples of top-down causation are self-evident in the context of humans in culture, though established *assumptions* in genetic causation (the nature/nurture debate) can make it ponderously difficult to see, for the indoctrinated. But top-down causation applies also to animals in ecosystems. This relates to the mind-body problem - the body's predispositions - where the body accounts for the *choices* to which a mind-body is predisposed. Bodies wire neuro-plastic brains, and all that. Thus humans with hands and vocal apparatus are predisposed to written and spoken language in culture, while animals with four paws, fur and limited to the making of barking or meowing sounds can never be. It is bad science to attribute this differences to the genetic code - the classic conflation of correlation with causation. Yes, genetics does *correlate* with phenotype but, I argue, in the context of top-down causation, it does not always cause it. Yes genes and their expression can have direct effects on phenotype, but the situation is more complex than the conventionally simplistic bottom-up causation. Thus, bottom-up causation is still important, but its direction of self-organization requires top-down "guidance" and the factoring in of predispositions. Without that guidance, there can only ever be chaos. For humans, that guidance comes in the form of "knowing how to be" in culture (what Martin Heidegger defines as Dasein). And when we factor in cube-root scaling to atomic/subatomic levels, the suggestion is that even at the level of matter, top-down "guidance" is required to ensure that atoms and molecules "express" the behavior (properties) appropriate to the contexts in which they find themselves. The astonishing complexity of the interactions taking place at inter/intra cellular levels, like across synapses, would not be possible without factoring in the top-down contexts that "inform" atomic/molecular agents of what's required of them. Bottom line, the one-word answer to your question is... *entropy* (Shannon information entropy, *not* Boltzman thermodynamic entropy).
But that is really saying nothing objective about consciousness. It is just talking about our subjective experiences. We subjectively experience memory. That is all we know about it. We have no idea how a memory is created and where and how it is stored. We subjective experience using language. But we have no idea why or how we have this capacity.
@@jackarmstrong5645 we know we have that part of the brain which is far more developed than other species and allows for memory and language, and what we identify as consciousness is highly dependent on our thoughts (we think in language), and our memories (telling us who we are, and have always been). So those components of consciousness are meta physical, regardless of the mechanism. That’s all I was saying.
I have no use for a theology that claims to know the answers to deep questions but bases its arguments on the beliefs of a single tribe. I am a practicing Christian but not a believing Christian. To me, to worship God means to recognize that mind and intelligence are woven into the fabric of our universe in a way that altogether surpasses our comprehension. "God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension." Dyson 2002a . Mind, God , Religion part 2 Freeman Dyson . "God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension."
So you’re appealing to your own arbitrary value judgment. So your worldview demands that reality must make sense to you and how you think things should be. This is to deny knowledge itself.
There are some theories in physics and mathematics that suggest possible similarities between human consciousness and 4D quaternion algebra, but these remain highly speculative and controversial. Quaternions are a type of mathematical object that extend the idea of complex numbers to four dimensions. They are often used in computer graphics and other applications where rotations in three-dimensional space are important. Some scientists and philosophers have proposed that quaternions might provide a mathematical framework for understanding aspects of consciousness that go beyond what can be explained by classical physics. One such theory is called the Orch-OR theory, which proposes that consciousness arises from quantum vibrations in microtubules inside neurons. This theory suggests that the vibrations can be modeled mathematically using 4D quaternions, which may provide a way to understand how the brain generates conscious experience. However, the Orch-OR theory and other theories that propose a connection between consciousness and quaternions remain controversial and are not widely accepted by the scientific community. While there may be interesting connections between the properties of quaternions and aspects of human consciousness, much more research would be needed to establish a firm connection between the two.
There is currently no scientific consensus on a definition of "emotion" or "consciousness". The brain is not capable of functioning normally without the rest of the organism also functioning normally. Unlike mechanisms, organisms are not an assembly of fully functional parts that can be meaningfully studied independently. Unlike mechanisms, all the parts that form an organism are constantly changing, growing, decaying, morphing and adapting as an interconnected whole from the start. Thus, to be meaningful any study of "consciousness" must necessarily take into account the organism as a whole, including its complete history in space-time.
A very interesting interview. He seems to have great knowedge on neuroscience and, most important, great awareness of what science still doesn't know on this matters. The emergence of consciousness, emotional feelings and cognitive capacity, are all based on the evolution of the human body and the "biological apparatus", so to say. The problem is that many people want to have another story. They got angry and nervous and write strange things in the comments section.
I appreciate the guest's attitude that the "hard problem" -- how conscious experiencing emerges from brain activity -- is premature to try to solve before first collecting a lot more detailed information about how the brain works. Kuhn should consider having himself cryogenically preserved, to be revived only after the hard problem is either solved or proved impossible, so he won't die frustrated & broken.
Thanks for having this guest. He is not presuming to know what gives rise to consciousness despite his admirable research in understanding human emotions. In fact he describes the origin of consciousness as a "fearful feeling." Those who sugarcoat the results of their study and research do a lot of misleading.
Are people who lack certain emotions, or possess a lower degree of emotions, less conscious than the general, average person? And what is the average degree of the emotional experience, and how is it measured?
@@nagualdesign As a matter of fact, I found it very interesting. My main question had to do with consciousness, but as it turns out I'm also dealing with a painful back issue and you've answered several questions I've been seeking answers to. Best of luck with your health issues.
The only thing we can be aware of is our experiences. An experience is a mental event, a creation of a brain. It is impossible to experience the world in any way. All we can experience are our brain created experiences.
I believe there is a very short answer that fits all the modalities within itself (the somatic marker, memories, emotions, lanhuage, senses.). It is Frequency that makes the brain conscious. I also believe brain itself does not hold or contain the consciousness, but rather is a tool for manifesting the latter.
@@miglena2s frequency of what? Frequency is a measurement of a wave. It just means how many cycles the wave has per second. Frequency itself isn't a thing and doesn't mean anything outside of that context.
@@chrisrace744 As per the definition of frequency: "the number of waves that pass a fixed point in unit time; also, the number of cycles or vibrations undergone during one unit of time by a body in periodic motion." Frequency tells all about state or level of consciousness. It is the one true indicator that can if not unify, at least conjuct matter and wave... and can tell a lot about wave in matter, hense conciousness in brain. It relates to the way a person thinks, act, behaves, and the values for life he supports, hense the meaning you put for your life. Consciousness (to me) has everything to do with frequency. Brain can not hold consciousness in itself (being just one expression of the wave), but it can channel energy and has the capacity of being harmonized and synchronized, as those two being characteristics of the wave, being expressed on a physical level as well. Harmonics in wave, harmonics in body. Harmonics in body through synchrony of consciousness.
The title says "What Makes Brains Conscious?", but here it's just an assumed, unexplained background state that gets "enriched" by "emotional systems", and has different transformations. They say nothing effectively, but basically insinuate the responses from the headset are creating the user, without actually saying it. Because the whole thing is an admitted dodge of the problem
@@tonyatkinson2210 We can for example perceive real-time neuronal activity (or 'firing patterns') captured using imaging technology. Neuronal activity is necessary for causing experience, but it is also embedded within our experience ie the patterns of neuronal activity. This seeing is a part of our perceptual experience.
@@cosminvisan Consciousness didn't emerge . It was everything that emerged out of consciousness. Cosmic consciousness existed before matter existed. Matter can't make or direct itself. Energy can't make or direct itself. They require instructions which we call Functional information. Everything requires intent and purpose. . Every particle contains functional information. Thoughts are information. Therefore consciousness exists everywhere. Cosmic consciousness. . The brain is an antenna of the consciousness that creates the mind. Like the antenna of a TV set. If the brain or antenna is damaged, we get a bad reception or no reception. Then a person becomes a vegetable.
Can a rat be conscious? Of course. Why? Because they can learn. Here’s a question: Can they learn without a functioning emotional system (e.g. amygdala)? Humans clearly can, although invoking the emotional system makes stronger memories. Learning involves reflection on past memories, which involves recursive processinng of similar neural patterns. Reflection is a fundamental, automatic process we call thinking. You can be aware without thinking, but in my mind, you are only conscious when you “reflect” - e.g. if I ask you “Are you conscious?” the only way you can answer that is to reflect a moment ago and realize you were thinking (or aware of) something else using your working memory. Rats can do this. Ants cannot - they are purely reflexive. That is the test of whether an organism can be conscious. If it cannot learn by reflection, using stored memory, it cannot be conscious.
The real question should be, "How does the created mind ( consciousness ) process those invisible vibrations into visible images for the created AI to observe"?
They're not invisible vibrations. They're hexadecimal pixels with numerical values that are read by the processor. We see them as colors when intaking its electromagnetic wavelengths because of the structure of the receptors in the eye, but an AI is not seeing in this classical sense. Its reading the numbers, assigning them a context, and then producing valuable output to us based on how we've trained it to understand numbers in that given context
@@SecretEyeSpot And all those visible shapes came from vibrations. Put sand on top of a table and then put a vibrating object on the table and see what happens to the sand. Or throw all kinds of different objects of various shapes and weights and throw them into a still pond and watch those waves form all kinds visible patterns. But everything we observe comes from very tiny vibrations that cannot be detected at all, not ever CERN can be used for that purpose.
@@BradHolkesvig yes, but theres a context when reducing a phenomenon to those parts is helpful. Unfortunately this is not one of them. Computer Processors are much simpler than our Complex Nervous Systems and only require bits to process phenomenon. So when referring to images for AI to observe, the chips will take its bits with a side of syntactic sugar. No vibrations needed. Unless we're referring to DSP (Digital Signal Processing) which is taking audio impulses and by way of an analog to digital converter translating the amplitude and pitch of incoming signal into a 1 and 0 pattern/context the Processor can interpret into useful information.
@@cosminvisan Mysteries; scientific mysteries, religious mysteries personify Freeman Dyson. Here's how he thinks , speculating about non-physical things is permitted even enjoyed but never confuse speculation with science. Not physical is not science. Dualism describes reality. There is a mental component or apparatus of some kind . The mental could affect or set the conditions of the physical universe . The mental could have instilled some kind of purpose . One could call this mental component or apparatus God . God, if there is a God, is part of the universe , evolves with the universe . God is Not omniscient, does not know what's going to happen. God's knowledge increases over time.
I have no use for a theology that claims to know the answers to deep questions but bases its arguments on the beliefs of a single tribe. I am a practicing Christian but not a believing Christian. To me, to worship God means to recognize that mind and intelligence are woven into the fabric of our universe in a way that altogether surpasses our comprehension. "God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension." Dyson 2002a . Mind, God , Religion part 2 Freeman Dyson . "God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension." .
Is the natural, physical world all-there-is? Or is there something more-a supernatural, nonphysical existence? The universe has a MENTAL apparatus. You may call it God , if you like, says Freeman Dyson . : "The public has a distorted view of science because children are taught in school that science is a collection of firmly established truths. Physicist Freeman Dyson
Proto-consciousness or Cosmic consciousness or The ocean of consciousness. The brain makes all these proto-consciousness coherent to become consciousness or the mind like a TV set that receives signals.
Consciousness didn't emerge . It was everything that emerged out of consciousness. Cosmic consciousness existed before matter existed. Matter can't make or direct itself. Energy can't make or direct itself. They require instructions which we call Functional information. Everything requires intent and purpose. . Every particle contains functional information. Thoughts are information. Therefore consciousness exists everywhere. Cosmic consciousness. . The brain is an antenna of the consciousness that creates the mind. Like the antenna of a TV set. If the brain or antenna is damaged, we get a bad reception or no reception. Then a person becomes a vegetable.
I appreciate these interviews about consciousness. But I have yet to hear an explanation of why the physical causal pathways (that theoretically explain all human behavior, including every nuance, every utterance) need subjective experience or how they explain subjective experience. I think any useful discussion of consciousness must begin with the one and only ABSOLUTE truth, which is the reality of 1st person subjective experience. Everything else, including self, others, world, is only suggested by experience- sensations, thoughts, and emotions. They are constructs that may or may not have a reality outside of first person experience. Most importantly, any theory of consciousness that doesn’t recognize the reality and special status of first person subjective experience is by definition mistaken.
This is right. To contend that "rats have a different consciousness," only to make the banal point that different organisms have different senses and intelligence, is to evade the question of consciousness as such and make a category error. Consciousness is first-person experience; awareness should not be confused for the sum total of all the things of which an individual is aware. A rat, wasp, human, and a moray eel all experience things in a way that your microwave doesn't. A human is no more conscious, in this sense, than a lizard. This is the point DNA co-discoverer Francis Crick made when studying consciousness. He asked a woman how she thought the emotions and mental images came about in the mind. She replied that she thought of the brain as like a TV creating the images, to which he inquired, "Yes, but who is watching the TV?" Neuroscience wonderfully tells us much about the structure of the TV, but definitionally offers no path forward for understanding awareness itself.
Consciousness is required to experience "now" or what feels like "now"... its actually past events (nano seconds ago). Input events into the brain coordinated into a single conscious experience and parts saved become a memory.
Human brain is a gene product .Human consciousness is a brain product.The contents in the consciousness determine our behaviour and actions.Brain is hardware ,memes(unit of cultural inheritance) are the software that runs on brain(hardware) and control our behaviour and actions.A bunch of genes and a bunch of memes make us what we are and what we do.
Is the natural, physical world all-there-is? Or is there something more-a supernatural, nonphysical existence? The universe has a MENTAL apparatus. You may call it God , if you like, says Freeman Dyson . : "The public has a distorted view of science because children are taught in school that science is a collection of firmly established truths. Physicist Freeman Dyson
@@dongshengdi773 Yaeh, 'the natural physical world', is the Stuff-side of Life. A Motion-Ocean. The Life-side is our Day-Consciousness, as Never Sleep, but move to our five Night-Bodies, at night, and at dead, just much longer. Equal to the last physical age. Thoughts is Also Motion, in principle Stuff, Thought-Stuff, of Fine-Electric Nature. No one have seen the Living, behind the Being, and No one have created the Eternal Life, as is Name-less in it's own Eternal Nature. If it is Science, it must be in 100% harmony with the Reality of Life. Yaeh, I like Freeman Dyson.
What any good engineer or scientist understands is how emergence in any mechanism works. DesCartes Res Extensa originated from a body's ability to move. Namely individual muscle cells combine and synchronize to extend physical force into the environment. Or individual cells like amoeba which swim around in a puddle can now extend a body into a larger reality or environment. The Res Cogitans or mind that moves the body can also emerge the larger reality or environment. If nature is following suit, the same combinatorial processes or synchronicity that occur in muscle cells also must be happening in neurons. Neuro science has not looked deeply enough into neurons to see the processes. Like trying to analyze a radio without understanding transistor semiconductor physics.
@@CesarClouds Is the natural, physical world all-there-is? Or is there something more-a supernatural, nonphysical existence? The universe has a MENTAL apparatus. You may call it God , if you like, says Freeman Dyson . : "The public has a distorted view of science because children are taught in school that science is a collection of firmly established truths. Physicist Freeman Dyson
@@CesarClouds Proto-consciousness or Cosmic consciousness or The ocean of consciousness. The brain makes all these proto-consciousness coherent to become consciousness or the mind like a TV set that receives signals.
Very interesting but this is of no help to understand the link between our perception and the physical description of our brains. The mentioned "global workspace" is just words put together to avoid solving the "hard problem". As long as we shall remain unable to provide any hint on what in the physical activity of our brain is characteristic of the smell of mint or the perceived redness of an object, all explanations that are supposedly given to fill the gap wont be credible. The day when we will have understood what is going on, no doubt we will be able to tell what process or events or physical patterns are behind our perception of redness !
How can we find out if radios receive and translate radio waves ? We measure radio waves . Your consciousness waves are invisible , and don’t interact with anything . Almost as if they don’t exist
@@tonyatkinson2210 Almost like you’re looking at them and seeing them as something else. We are bathing in it 24/7. It’s the electromagnetic shield that surrounds our planet. You’re like a fish arguing that water is a myth.
What is Intellect? It's a great measure, given that many a followers of modern science today believe they're so advanced, specifically compared to those of the medieval ages, when in truth it's the other way around. "Progress as in industrialism" does not mean 'advancement' concerning genuine science. Technology is incredible and has most certainly and true hindered us Intellectually and metaphysically. Each and every passing day people become more and more dissociated, configured, whitewashed and haven't a clue where we are, why we are, how we are and what we're here for; what does it mean. Ask any materialists or pseudo scientist, clowns like Tony Atkinson, kosmos, grauwolfe who comment impertinently even supercilliously here and oft, they are the epitome of what modern 'education' has done. You are all contemptible, 'yes' men... What it means to be 'MAN'... is to listen to thy Heart, the lotus, the grou ds of the soul; man is synonymous with the Soul as man was made in the image of God; the 'humanity' in man is the nature of Christ or Krishna; these virtues, divinities, God's come through us -- some conceive others recieve, and others are without. Congratulations 'modern' scientists and folks, you done great job screwing peoples lives over, people never activating 'dharma' or God realization. You are fake, deluded, liars, yes man, impious, fools! Each and everyone of you here.
I don’t know any scientist or historian or biologist that we are more intelligent than those that live in in medieval times or even at any time in our past as a distinct species . We just know a lot more about the world around us. Our greatest intellect may have been a hunter gatherer on the plains of Africa long before we developed farming . If he had been born today he may have been our greatest scientist . This view you have of what scientist think is really misinformed of what they do think
Oh and I can’t speak to the others you mentioned , but I don’t consider myself a materialist . In fact, I reject that position because it cannot be demonstrated
The mind is what gives, observes and develops the body, spirit and soul. The mind loves to repeat a process till it reaches a profound stage of en-light-en-ment. The Head is always part of the Body. The head is a beast and knows how to take control of its properties.
Dude hit an important point about "danger." Consciousness came about when your ancestor in the primordial sea had to detect, intrepret, then escape the predator trying to bite his head off so he could live long enough to reproduce.
@@ManiBalajiC Proto-consciousness or Cosmic consciousness or The ocean of consciousness. The brain makes all these proto-consciousness coherent to become consciousness or the mind like a TV set that receives signals.
@@christopher_ecclestone I have no use for a theology that claims to know the answers to deep questions but bases its arguments on the beliefs of a single tribe. I am a practicing Christian but not a believing Christian. To me, to worship God means to recognize that mind and intelligence are woven into the fabric of our universe in a way that altogether surpasses our comprehension. "God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension." Dyson 2002a . Mind, God , Religion part 2 Freeman Dyson . "God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension." .
I personally don't believe that our consciousness requires brains. My personal belief is that the planet Earth itself is conscious that all planets are conscious and the universe is self is conscious and that the universe is mental. I like metaphysics. I have experienced the powers are metaphysics the laws of attraction and be unseen sciences that man can never understand no matter how many telescopes and a red machine's he creates these things can never show you the other side of reality. Real reality is unseen the physical world in my opinion is just that physical and it is not real.
There is absolutely no evidence brain produces consciousness. But there is evidence consciousness extends beyond the brain. Look up Non Local Consciousness and Out of Body Experiences. I've had such an experience and I can tell you without any doubt that my consciousness extended beyond my body. There is no need to include spirituality in this equation. I am simply saying I do not think neurons produce awareness and therefore, from my own experiences, I can conclude that my awareness is beyond the physical processes in the brain.
Consciousness didn't emerge . It was everything that emerged out of consciousness. Cosmic consciousness existed before matter existed. Matter can't make or direct itself. Energy can't make or direct itself. They require instructions which we call Functional information. Everything requires intent and purpose. . Every particle contains functional information. Thoughts are information. Therefore consciousness exists everywhere. Cosmic consciousness. . The brain is an antenna of the consciousness that creates the mind. Like the antenna of a TV set. If the brain or antenna is damaged, we get a bad reception or no reception. Then a person becomes a vegetable.
where do u think it comes from then? why does the brain’s physical state follow such a close, if not perfect, correlation to an individual’s experience (take brain damage patients as examples). why do u think chemicals in the mind such as dopamine affect emotion and motivation? the more I’ve learned about neuroscience, the more experiences i’ve been able to relate to the mind’s physical attributes. clearly, if the brain somehow isn’t responsible for consciousness, it must still provide some essential role given that when its physical characteristics undergo changes, the individual’s experience changes as a direct reflection of that physical state. you claim to not be entering the realm of the spiritual, but unless you have some higher dimensional theory or something, that’s essentially where we’ve arrived. regardless, I hope we can both at least agree that the mind has an important role. I’m curious what that role is in your theory. I’m not attacking you, I just want a more clear picture of what your thoughts are, because I couldn’t derive any kind of clear claim from ur original comment other than that u think consciousness is “beyond your body”
@@longextinct Keep in mind a couple things. 1, brain is a concept created by consciousness 2, brain has even an incomplete definition with respect to consciousness Regarding correlation. Think of the tv analogy. There is a correlation with certain parts of the tv screen with language. The edges generally don’t have mouths. The mouths of the characters typically are found near the center of the screen. So that must be the language center, right?
How do you know your consciousness extended beyond your body during this experience? I know it felt like it did , but how do you know this experience wasn’t generated internally ? Our of body experiences can be generated by hypoxia, drugs , trauma ect .there is no evidence they are not illusionary. No individual who has experienced NDE for example has been able to tell the researchers what was written on the top of the cupboard in the operating theatre despite their testimony that they felt themselves rise above their body and look down at themselves , the surgeons and the room . They just felt like they did . The experiences felt real to them . That doesn’t mean they were real
I dont know why guys insiste NEVER show up true evidence. It isnt correted neuro funcions proceedings. He experience are lacking processes in brains evidence. He words are cover up his mislead neuros proceedings.
There is no such thing as a "mind/body" problem. We know what a mind is because it is all we know. And we have no clue what a body is, what matter is. Knowing about one thing and not knowing about another is an example of human knowledge and ignorance, not some "problem".
@@deanodebo Physics is the study of the behavior of matter and energy. Physics does not have any knowledge of what matter is or why it behaves the way it does. But physics is very good at predicting the behavior of matter and energy in many circumstances. It has use. And that is enough.
@@jackarmstrong5645 Right. So your OP I guess was assuming physics is the only rational investigation in life? Otherwise I’m not sure why you deny the mind/body problem or why you’re singularly focused on physics
@@jackarmstrong5645 Well we know the mind and body interact but we don’t understand how. We also know abstract entities exist beyond matter. Transcendental categories like numbers, logic, induction, the self, etc So the point is if physics can’t handle metaphysics (duh), then we open up all sorts of ideas. And remember, physics can never prove anything or even make truth claims. So if you’re limiting your investigation to physics, good luck!
The space between you and I is eternal energy. Distortion is the problem of humanity. If you think the bible, Chinese and some west African cosmology don't hold the truth to some of the issues you face today in this part of the developed world, you have definitely underestimated yourself and the people you look down on. Residual effect start from when you think it - don't let energy on the go or emotion steal and kill your extraordinary supernatural mind.
X-Files Humans (love) vs. Vampires (greed) Consciousness vs. Unconsciousness Light vs. Dark Help vs. Sanction Feed vs. Starve Comfort vs. Torture Pianos vs. Bombs Harmony vs. Conflict Peace vs. War Heart vs. Ego Gold vs. Lead Heaven vs. Hell Vampires (greed) are blind and cannot see the ignorance of transforming heaven (peace) into hell (war). The capitalist counting corpses are also blind and cannot see the ignorance of destroying the planet. Unlike earthling poets, artists, musicians, mystics, human beings and creators of joy...the capitalist counting corpses that rule US can't create harmony (real intelligence) because vampires (greed) are ignorant (dead). Vampires (greed) who suck the joy out of life have joined the zombies who eat the futures of their children. Zombie Apocalypse is here and happening now.
I don't know why atheists have such trouble with the idea that consciousness is not in the brain, it's elsewhere and perhaps everywhere. I think it's because that sounds too much like theology. Watching a few Donald Hoffman videos got me wondering about consciousness. Maybe consciousness is just part of nature, like the brain.
@Blake Gods will c'mon Dude... you're not! once I was making enough profit from her services I started referring her to my siblings and family relations... You know how well good news travel Huh!!!!
Joseph LeDoux - What Makes Brains Conscious? This really is an unfair question, simply due to the fact that "conscious," is still an arguable field of study. That being said; The multitude of processes in the brain allow for compound complex thinking. Whilst animals are limited to their daily activities for their dreams, humanity is capable of retaining past and present, while aiming for the future aspirations. This is the separation between a human and a tree. Both ARE alive, simply with different purpose. What makes a Human Brain Conscious, is the ability to interact with the universal system it is a part of.
A brain makes consciousness. Consciousness doesn't make a brain. I think the real problem of consciousness is coming up with a proper definition of what "it" is. It is definitely a process and definitely requires a brain.
Hilariously wrong. Of course it's consciousness that is making the brain. The brain only exists inside of consciousness, it's just a representation of the process of cognition. Thinking that the brain makes consciousness is like thinking what's visible on your screen generates the processing of the computer rather than the other way around.
@@hhpoa: No, it demonstrates the utter stupidity and embarrassing irony of what he's saying. The fact that you think otherwise just makes it clear that you are equally moronic, if not even more so.
Thanks for the upload his book "Anxious" and "The Synaptic Self" are wonderfully written scientific philosophy!..
Good discussion. To understand consciousness, you must first understand “what” is experiencing consciousness, what is conscious. What is the “I” in “I am conscious?” One can hypothesize about the properties of consciousness, but not knowing what is conscious and also the social and environmental aspects of consciousness, a complete theory of consciousness will continue to be illusive.
Great video…
So intelligent, and interested in objective study rather than premature speculation.
Premature Speculation or Hypothesis formation?
I've said this before and I will repeat myself... Everything makes sense but at the same time, nothing makes sense.
In Hidden Spring, Mark Solms makes the case that consciousness is affect, which is a broader and encompasses, but is not limited to emotion, and includes mood and the feeling of awareness, as well as the feeling of self (meta) awareness.
The points he makes about the importance of the brain mechanisms responsible for language in conscious awareness mirror closely the similar points made by Noam Chomsky in one of his interviews on CTT. I think calling these brain areas the language centres potentially under-plays their importance. If they give us our ability to conceptualise physical and conceptual relationships hierarchically, and as I suspect also play a role in our ability to reason about complex procedure such as tool making and technological processes, then they play a vital role in a lot of activities and behaviours beyond just language. Possibly higher reasoning in general.
It may be that higher mammals may have a first person experience of the world, but lack much ability to value or reflect on that experience, or appreciate it in others.
Questions: Where exactly is memory stored? What makes all the processes together create consciousness? There is still this huge gap of understanding.
2:40 "My idea about emotional consciousness of feelings is that there's a 3rd ingredient that's added in, the fact that emotion systems in the brain are active, & this is added in in 2 ways."
What Joseph LeDoux is describing throughout this interview is correlation, not causation. The above passage I cite is merely the central correlation that purportedly accounts for *emotion* but it still does not explain causation. It's analogous to saying that a car's engine causes the car to move, but declaring that it has an engine does not explain the relationship between the physics and the technology required to move said car.
So what are the natural laws required to move said brain? We are none the wiser with this outline of correlations. Two essential elements of top-down causation, imho, are missing:
1. Entanglement;
2. Association.
1. ENTANGLEMENT
So why should entanglement be significant? Let's take a closer look.
DNA entanglement in the neuro-plastic brain. A colony of DNA-entangled neurons must be way more efficient than a colony of unentangled neurons. The simulation that substantiates this is the modern, human-plastic city, where telecommunications simulates the effects of entanglement. Telecommunications, in effect, provides every person in the human-plastic city with immediate access to collective information, to thus enable the city to act as a giant brain. Cities form into functional specializations, just as brains do. Likewise, neurons require immediate access to collective information in order to make the right choices, appropriate to the functioning of the brain. The evidence? A modern city providing humans with immediate access to collective cultural information, via telecommunications, survives and thrives as a unity, just as a brain does.
The appeal of DNA entanglement is that it stands to provide solutions to the biggest problems revolving around 1) entropy, 2) binding, 3) mind-body unity. What's it like to be a bat, a fish, an ant or a bee? That's the mind-body problem, and a DNA-entanglement thesis might be an essential first step in providing the answer, because *bodies wire neuro-plastic DNA-entangled brains* .
My engineer's (B.Eng) hunch is that some manner of entanglement *must* be factored in to explain the top-down causation of consciousness, with my city metaphor providing the justification. This approach explains not just the correlation, but also the causation... yes, the amygdala is important in emotion-formation (like fear at 2:56), but it's not the "cause" of it. Entanglement, in synthesis with association, comes closer to understanding causation, imho.
2. ASSOCIATION AND ILLUSION
I've commented before on CTT, on the relevance of the semiotic and biosemiotic theories CS Peirce and J von Uexküll. Motivation,, association and habituation provide a robust framework for understanding the relevance of motivation (as affect, feeling or emotion), association (relevant to experiences that wire the neuroplastic brain) and habituation (as etched into the brain's functional specializations). This semiotic narrative suggests a possible axiomatic framework for the life sciences, on a par in its significance with the axiomatic framework provided for classical physics by Isaac Newton.
More recently, I've commented on the relationship between association and illusion (2 days ago, Noam Chomsky on the Big Questions, Part 4, Closer To Truth Chats). This relationship with illusion opens up exciting new possibilities to explore, extending all the way down to the level of matter (particularly if we factor in cube-root scaling at the subatomic levels). ALL associations relate to meaning, and the creation of illusion. Optical illusions abound on the internet, only because they are easy to reproduce on monitors. But ultimately *all* associations across *all* the senses (including hearing, taste, smell, touch) are illusions. They relate to combining concepts to create entirely new concepts that are quite distinct from the concepts from which they are assembled. The key to understanding these recombinations of associations is *meaning* (or feeling/affect, if you will).
TO SUMMARIZE:
1) A person's experience with a leaf (to take LeDoux's example) is an association with the brain collective, including its memories and its mind-body functions and specializations. It doesn't make sense to isolate particular brain functional specializations in order to explain causation. That approach is stuck in the narrative of classic bottom-up causation, and the best it can hope to do is describe correlations. On the question of causation, however, the only valid response to these observed correlations is... so what? We need to factor in top-down causation, and thus, DNA-entanglement and association.
2) Buddhists famously make references to illusion. Here, their idea is that the mind's projections onto reality are illusions. This merits further exploration, particularly in the context of association. Maybe Buddhists have a point. Maybe they've already paved a way to something fundamental, something that's been blocked to us because of our confinement to our narratives in bottom-up causation.
3) I get it that people might take issue with my DNA-entanglement conjecture. Decoherence in warm, wet environments and all that. But here's the problem. I don't believe in god as first cause. I don't accept souls as an explanation. I don't accept any kind of woo. But I also categorically reject the mainstream's failure to take entropy seriously. There *must* be some way to account for how the brain and life are able to survive, persisting across space and time. And if my belief in DNA entanglement is dismissed as unsubstantiated conjecture, then so be it. I'm placing all my eggs in the DNA-entanglement conjecture because there is nothing else that works. There just isn't. And until there is, I'm sticking with it. There does, however, exist circumstantial evidence for DNA entanglement because there exists evidence of correlations between neurons that have not been otherwise accounted for (*Apostolou & Kintzios, 2018 and **Pizzi et al, 2004).
*Apostolou, T. & Kintzios, S. (2018). Cell-to-cell communication: Evidence of near-instantaneous distant, non-chemical communication between neuronal (human SK-N-SH neuroblastoma) cells by using a novel bioelectric biosensor. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 25(9-10), pp. 62-74.
**Pizzi, R., Fantasia, A., Gelain, F., Rosetti, D., & Vescovi, A. (2004). Non-local correlations between separated neural networks. In E. Donkor, A. Pirick, & H. Brandt (Eds.), Quantum Information and Computation (Proceedings of SPIE), 5436(II), 107-117.
Why do you think consciousness is top down causation ?
@@tonyatkinson2210 Entropy. More specifically, Shannon entropy as opposed to thermodynamic (Boltzman) entropy.
I should correct you though... I'm not saying to exclude bottom-up causation, but to factor in top-down causation. Bottom-up causation merely constrains what the top-down can command.
Examples of top-down causation are self-evident in the context of humans in culture, though established *assumptions* in genetic causation (the nature/nurture debate) can make it ponderously difficult to see, for the indoctrinated.
But top-down causation applies also to animals in ecosystems. This relates to the mind-body problem - the body's predispositions - where the body accounts for the *choices* to which a mind-body is predisposed. Bodies wire neuro-plastic brains, and all that. Thus humans with hands and vocal apparatus are predisposed to written and spoken language in culture, while animals with four paws, fur and limited to the making of barking or meowing sounds can never be.
It is bad science to attribute this differences to the genetic code - the classic conflation of correlation with causation. Yes, genetics does *correlate* with phenotype but, I argue, in the context of top-down causation, it does not always cause it. Yes genes and their expression can have direct effects on phenotype, but the situation is more complex than the conventionally simplistic bottom-up causation.
Thus, bottom-up causation is still important, but its direction of self-organization requires top-down "guidance" and the factoring in of predispositions. Without that guidance, there can only ever be chaos. For humans, that guidance comes in the form of "knowing how to be" in culture (what Martin Heidegger defines as Dasein).
And when we factor in cube-root scaling to atomic/subatomic levels, the suggestion is that even at the level of matter, top-down "guidance" is required to ensure that atoms and molecules "express" the behavior (properties) appropriate to the contexts in which they find themselves. The astonishing complexity of the interactions taking place at inter/intra cellular levels, like across synapses, would not be possible without factoring in the top-down contexts that "inform" atomic/molecular agents of what's required of them.
Bottom line, the one-word answer to your question is... *entropy* (Shannon information entropy, *not* Boltzman thermodynamic entropy).
Yes, memory and language are key components to what we define as the conscious experience.
But that is really saying nothing objective about consciousness. It is just talking about our subjective experiences. We subjectively experience memory. That is all we know about it. We have no idea how a memory is created and where and how it is stored. We subjective experience using language. But we have no idea why or how we have this capacity.
everything has memory and language.
@@jackarmstrong5645 we know we have that part of the brain which is far more developed than other species and allows for memory and language, and what we identify as consciousness is highly dependent on our thoughts (we think in language), and our memories (telling us who we are, and have always been). So those components of consciousness are meta physical, regardless of the mechanism. That’s all I was saying.
@@santosmedina6641 Are you talking about animals? Well they are conscious too.
what constitutes memory in brain? short term working memory and long term memories?
Can we think things we don't have words for?
I have no use for a theology that claims to know the answers to deep questions but bases its arguments on the beliefs of a single tribe. I am a practicing Christian but not a believing Christian. To me, to worship God means to recognize that mind and intelligence are woven into the fabric of our universe in a way that altogether surpasses our comprehension.
"God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension."
Dyson 2002a
.
Mind, God , Religion part 2
Freeman Dyson
.
"God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension."
So you’re appealing to your own arbitrary value judgment. So your worldview demands that reality must make sense to you and how you think things should be. This is to deny knowledge itself.
There are some theories in physics and mathematics that suggest possible similarities between human consciousness and 4D quaternion algebra, but these remain highly speculative and controversial.
Quaternions are a type of mathematical object that extend the idea of complex numbers to four dimensions. They are often used in computer graphics and other applications where rotations in three-dimensional space are important. Some scientists and philosophers have proposed that quaternions might provide a mathematical framework for understanding aspects of consciousness that go beyond what can be explained by classical physics.
One such theory is called the Orch-OR theory, which proposes that consciousness arises from quantum vibrations in microtubules inside neurons. This theory suggests that the vibrations can be modeled mathematically using 4D quaternions, which may provide a way to understand how the brain generates conscious experience.
However, the Orch-OR theory and other theories that propose a connection between consciousness and quaternions remain controversial and are not widely accepted by the scientific community. While there may be interesting connections between the properties of quaternions and aspects of human consciousness, much more research would be needed to establish a firm connection between the two.
There is currently no scientific consensus on a definition of "emotion" or "consciousness". The brain is not capable of functioning normally without the rest of the organism also functioning normally. Unlike mechanisms, organisms are not an assembly of fully functional parts that can be meaningfully studied independently. Unlike mechanisms, all the parts that form an organism are constantly changing, growing, decaying, morphing and adapting as an interconnected whole from the start. Thus, to be meaningful any study of "consciousness" must necessarily take into account the organism as a whole, including its complete history in space-time.
is there both a cognitive subjective awareness and a phenomenal conscious awareness?
A very interesting interview. He seems to have great knowedge on neuroscience and, most important, great awareness of what science still doesn't know on this matters. The emergence of consciousness, emotional feelings and cognitive capacity, are all based on the evolution of the human body and the "biological apparatus", so to say. The problem is that many people want to have another story. They got angry and nervous and write strange things in the comments section.
I appreciate the guest's attitude that the "hard problem" -- how conscious experiencing emerges from brain activity -- is premature to try to solve before first collecting a lot more detailed information about how the brain works. Kuhn should consider having himself cryogenically preserved, to be revived only after the hard problem is either solved or proved impossible, so he won't die frustrated & broken.
Oh, the DORK is back!
@@MassimoAngotzi : I see the pathetic credulous troll has joined us.
Thanks for having this guest. He is not presuming to know what gives rise to consciousness despite his admirable research in understanding human emotions. In fact he describes the origin of consciousness as a "fearful feeling."
Those who sugarcoat the results of their study and research do a lot of misleading.
Said the monkey
Really interesting discussion, really distracting microscope
It was the armature in the background that caught my eye. 😊
The same thing that makes consciousness brains
Are flock of neurons cell transform stimulation input into information setting that only understand by it self
Are people who lack certain emotions, or possess a lower degree of emotions, less conscious than the general, average person? And what is the average degree of the emotional experience, and how is it measured?
@@cosminvisan Ponta na bot ca.
@@nagualdesign As a matter of fact, I found it very interesting. My main question had to do with consciousness, but as it turns out I'm also dealing with a painful back issue and you've answered several questions I've been seeking answers to.
Best of luck with your health issues.
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
The only thing we can be aware of is our experiences. An experience is a mental event, a creation of a brain.
It is impossible to experience the world in any way. All we can experience are our brain created experiences.
@@jackarmstrong5645 if this is the case then when events happen in nature that other organisms respond to what are they actually experiencing?
Awareness requires attention and memory, but doesn't require a self for it to be aware of. So who's aware?
@@SecretEyeSpot Awareness implies two things. Something that has awareness AND the things it is aware of.
@@SecretEyeSpot Who says they are experiencing anything? There can be reflexive activity without experience. Theoretically.
But what is consciousness
I believe there is a very short answer that fits all the modalities within itself (the somatic marker, memories, emotions, lanhuage, senses.). It is Frequency that makes the brain conscious. I also believe brain itself does not hold or contain the consciousness, but rather is a tool for manifesting the latter.
Frequency doesn't mean anything in this context.
@@chrisrace744 to me it means all
@@miglena2s frequency of what? Frequency is a measurement of a wave. It just means how many cycles the wave has per second. Frequency itself isn't a thing and doesn't mean anything outside of that context.
@@chrisrace744 As per the definition of frequency: "the number of waves that pass a fixed point in unit time; also, the number of cycles or vibrations undergone during one unit of time by a body in periodic motion."
Frequency tells all about state or level of consciousness. It is the one true indicator that can if not unify, at least conjuct matter and wave... and can tell a lot about wave in matter, hense conciousness in brain. It relates to the way a person thinks, act, behaves, and the values for life he supports, hense the meaning you put for your life. Consciousness (to me) has everything to do with frequency. Brain can not hold consciousness in itself (being just one expression of the wave), but it can channel energy and has the capacity of being harmonized and synchronized, as those two being characteristics of the wave, being expressed on a physical level as well. Harmonics in wave, harmonics in body. Harmonics in body through synchrony of consciousness.
@@miglena2s you didn't answer my question. Frequency of WHAT ?
Times are hard at Closer to Truth? Lighting is to expensive?
The title says "What Makes Brains Conscious?", but here it's just an assumed, unexplained background state that gets "enriched" by "emotional systems", and has different transformations. They say nothing effectively, but basically insinuate the responses from the headset are creating the user, without actually saying it. Because the whole thing is an admitted dodge of the problem
'What-neurons-appear-to-be-doing' is a part of conscious experience...can it be causing consciousness?
We don’t experience what our neurons are doing . I don’t see how they can be part of our experience. They cause it , but aren’t part of it .
@@tonyatkinson2210 We can for example perceive real-time neuronal activity (or 'firing patterns') captured using imaging technology. Neuronal activity is necessary for causing experience, but it is also embedded within our experience ie the patterns of neuronal activity. This seeing is a part of our perceptual experience.
A divine spark that, by its very nature cannot be boxed nor understood by "brains"... but only minds.
Fun to watch this later.
What the fuck is "divine", and what evidence do you have for such a claim?
@@cosminvisan Consciousness didn't emerge .
It was everything that emerged out of consciousness.
Cosmic consciousness existed before matter existed.
Matter can't make or direct itself.
Energy can't make or direct itself.
They require instructions which we call Functional information.
Everything requires intent and purpose.
.
Every particle contains functional information.
Thoughts are information.
Therefore consciousness exists everywhere.
Cosmic consciousness.
.
The brain is an antenna of the consciousness that creates the mind.
Like the antenna of a TV set.
If the brain or antenna is damaged, we get a bad reception or no reception. Then a person becomes a vegetable.
I will never look at a leaf on a tree the same way again.
Can a rat be conscious? Of course. Why? Because they can learn. Here’s a question: Can they learn without a functioning emotional system (e.g. amygdala)? Humans clearly can, although invoking the emotional system makes stronger memories. Learning involves reflection on past memories, which involves recursive processinng of similar neural patterns. Reflection is a fundamental, automatic process we call thinking. You can be aware without thinking, but in my mind, you are only conscious when you “reflect” - e.g. if I ask you “Are you conscious?” the only way you can answer that is to reflect a moment ago and realize you were thinking (or aware of) something else using your working memory. Rats can do this. Ants cannot - they are purely reflexive. That is the test of whether an organism can be conscious. If it cannot learn by reflection, using stored memory, it cannot be conscious.
The real question should be, "How does the created mind ( consciousness ) process those invisible vibrations into visible images for the created AI to observe"?
They're not invisible vibrations. They're hexadecimal pixels with numerical values that are read by the processor. We see them as colors when intaking its electromagnetic wavelengths because of the structure of the receptors in the eye, but an AI is not seeing in this classical sense. Its reading the numbers, assigning them a context, and then producing valuable output to us based on how we've trained it to understand numbers in that given context
@@SecretEyeSpot And all those visible shapes came from vibrations. Put sand on top of a table and then put a vibrating object on the table and see what happens to the sand. Or throw all kinds of different objects of various shapes and weights and throw them into a still pond and watch those waves form all kinds visible patterns. But everything we observe comes from very tiny vibrations that cannot be detected at all, not ever CERN can be used for that purpose.
@@BradHolkesvig yes, but theres a context when reducing a phenomenon to those parts is helpful. Unfortunately this is not one of them. Computer Processors are much simpler than our Complex Nervous Systems and only require bits to process phenomenon. So when referring to images for AI to observe, the chips will take its bits with a side of syntactic sugar. No vibrations needed.
Unless we're referring to DSP (Digital Signal Processing) which is taking audio impulses and by way of an analog to digital converter translating the amplitude and pitch of incoming signal into a 1 and 0 pattern/context the Processor can interpret into useful information.
@@SecretEyeSpot
Another question unanswered
I am a Neuroscience undergraduate student from Kashmir, really interested in knowing the science of consciousness. Any suggestions?
@@cosminvisan Mysteries; scientific mysteries, religious mysteries personify Freeman Dyson. Here's how he thinks , speculating about non-physical things is permitted even enjoyed but never confuse speculation with science. Not physical is not science. Dualism describes reality. There is a mental component or apparatus of some kind . The mental could affect or set the conditions of the physical universe . The mental could have instilled some kind of purpose . One could call this mental component or apparatus God . God, if there is a God, is part of the universe , evolves with the universe . God is Not omniscient, does not know what's going to happen. God's knowledge increases over time.
I have no use for a theology that claims to know the answers to deep questions but bases its arguments on the beliefs of a single tribe. I am a practicing Christian but not a believing Christian. To me, to worship God means to recognize that mind and intelligence are woven into the fabric of our universe in a way that altogether surpasses our comprehension.
"God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension."
Dyson 2002a
.
Mind, God , Religion part 2
Freeman Dyson
.
"God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension."
.
Is the natural, physical world all-there-is? Or is there something more-a supernatural, nonphysical existence?
The universe has a MENTAL apparatus. You may call it God , if you like, says Freeman Dyson .
:
"The public has a distorted view of science because children are taught in school that science is a collection of firmly established truths.
Physicist Freeman Dyson
Proto-consciousness or
Cosmic consciousness or
The ocean of consciousness.
The brain makes all these proto-consciousness coherent to become consciousness or the mind like a TV set that receives signals.
Consciousness didn't emerge .
It was everything that emerged out of consciousness.
Cosmic consciousness existed before matter existed.
Matter can't make or direct itself.
Energy can't make or direct itself.
They require instructions which we call Functional information.
Everything requires intent and purpose.
.
Every particle contains functional information.
Thoughts are information.
Therefore consciousness exists everywhere.
Cosmic consciousness.
.
The brain is an antenna of the consciousness that creates the mind.
Like the antenna of a TV set.
If the brain or antenna is damaged, we get a bad reception or no reception. Then a person becomes a vegetable.
i think the main question is "why matter act intelligently ? (and gives raise to consciousness too)"
The one and only
I appreciate these interviews about consciousness. But I have yet to hear an explanation of why the physical causal pathways (that theoretically explain all human behavior, including every nuance, every utterance) need subjective experience or how they explain subjective experience.
I think any useful discussion of consciousness must begin with the one and only ABSOLUTE truth, which is the reality of 1st person subjective experience. Everything else, including self, others, world, is only suggested by experience- sensations, thoughts, and emotions. They are constructs that may or may not have a reality outside of first person experience.
Most importantly, any theory of consciousness that doesn’t recognize the reality and special status of first person subjective experience is by definition mistaken.
This is right. To contend that "rats have a different consciousness," only to make the banal point that different organisms have different senses and intelligence, is to evade the question of consciousness as such and make a category error. Consciousness is first-person experience; awareness should not be confused for the sum total of all the things of which an individual is aware. A rat, wasp, human, and a moray eel all experience things in a way that your microwave doesn't. A human is no more conscious, in this sense, than a lizard.
This is the point DNA co-discoverer Francis Crick made when studying consciousness. He asked a woman how she thought the emotions and mental images came about in the mind. She replied that she thought of the brain as like a TV creating the images, to which he inquired, "Yes, but who is watching the TV?" Neuroscience wonderfully tells us much about the structure of the TV, but definitionally offers no path forward for understanding awareness itself.
but all that seems like correlates to the hard problem
dont expect intellectual honesty.... every institution is hardwired in metaphysics of physicalism of
Consciousness is required to experience "now" or what feels like "now"... its actually past events (nano seconds ago). Input events into the brain coordinated into a single conscious experience and parts saved become a memory.
Interesting. So those who lack short term and long term memory aren't comscious?
Human brain is a gene product .Human consciousness is a brain product.The contents in the consciousness determine our behaviour and actions.Brain is hardware ,memes(unit of cultural inheritance) are the software that runs on brain(hardware) and control our behaviour and actions.A bunch of genes and a bunch of memes make us what we are and what we do.
Brains is Living Beings,
all Living Beings is Life-Unit's,
all Life-Unit's have their own Eternal Consciousness.
Is the natural, physical world all-there-is? Or is there something more-a supernatural, nonphysical existence?
The universe has a MENTAL apparatus. You may call it God , if you like, says Freeman Dyson .
:
"The public has a distorted view of science because children are taught in school that science is a collection of firmly established truths.
Physicist Freeman Dyson
@@dongshengdi773 Yaeh, 'the natural physical world', is the Stuff-side of Life. A Motion-Ocean.
The Life-side is our Day-Consciousness, as Never Sleep, but move to our five Night-Bodies, at night, and at dead, just much longer. Equal to the last physical age.
Thoughts is Also Motion, in principle Stuff, Thought-Stuff, of Fine-Electric Nature.
No one have seen the Living, behind the Being, and No one have created the Eternal Life, as is Name-less in it's own Eternal Nature.
If it is Science, it must be in 100% harmony with the Reality of Life.
Yaeh, I like Freeman Dyson.
What any good engineer or scientist understands is how emergence in any mechanism works. DesCartes Res Extensa originated from a body's ability to move. Namely individual muscle cells combine and synchronize to extend physical force into the environment. Or individual cells like amoeba which swim around in a puddle can now extend a body into a larger reality or environment. The Res Cogitans or mind that moves the body can also emerge the larger reality or environment. If nature is following suit, the same combinatorial processes or synchronicity that occur in muscle cells also must be happening in neurons. Neuro science has not looked deeply enough into neurons to see the processes. Like trying to analyze a radio without understanding transistor semiconductor physics.
Who says neurons haven't been looked at too deeply in regards to consciousness? Look up selective signal enhancement.
@@CesarClouds Is the natural, physical world all-there-is? Or is there something more-a supernatural, nonphysical existence?
The universe has a MENTAL apparatus. You may call it God , if you like, says Freeman Dyson .
:
"The public has a distorted view of science because children are taught in school that science is a collection of firmly established truths.
Physicist Freeman Dyson
@@CesarClouds Proto-consciousness or
Cosmic consciousness or
The ocean of consciousness.
The brain makes all these proto-consciousness coherent to become consciousness or the mind like a TV set that receives signals.
@@dongshengdi773 What's your point?
To paraphrase Alice in Wonderland, "I've seen a brain without consciousness, but never consciousness without a brain "
You've _seen_
you will one day...
@@cibriis1710 will you please explain?
@@MrModikoe can I ask how?
Very interesting but this is of no help to understand the link between our perception and the physical description of our brains. The mentioned "global workspace" is just words put together to avoid solving the "hard problem". As long as we shall remain unable to provide any hint on what in the physical activity of our brain is characteristic of the smell of mint or the perceived redness of an object, all explanations that are supposedly given to fill the gap wont be credible. The day when we will have understood what is going on, no doubt we will be able to tell what process or events or physical patterns are behind our perception of redness !
The brain filters Consciousness, it doesn’t produce it.
Similarly, a radio translates radio waves, it doesn’t create them.
How can we find out if radios receive and translate radio waves ?
We measure radio waves .
Your consciousness waves are invisible , and don’t interact with anything . Almost as if they don’t exist
@@tonyatkinson2210 Almost like you’re looking at them and seeing them as something else. We are bathing in it 24/7. It’s the electromagnetic shield that surrounds our planet.
You’re like a fish arguing that water is a myth.
@@cosminvisan Nice argument.
ghostg • Ken Wheeler's lunacy? 😏
I've told him many times to stop the idiotic example with the radio. ☹️
What is Intellect?
It's a great measure, given that many a followers of modern science today believe they're so advanced, specifically compared to those of the medieval ages, when in truth it's the other way around. "Progress as in industrialism" does not mean 'advancement' concerning genuine science. Technology is incredible and has most certainly and true hindered us Intellectually and metaphysically. Each and every passing day people become more and more dissociated, configured, whitewashed and haven't a clue where we are, why we are, how we are and what we're here for; what does it mean. Ask any materialists or pseudo scientist, clowns like Tony Atkinson, kosmos, grauwolfe who comment impertinently even supercilliously here and oft, they are the epitome of what modern 'education' has done.
You are all contemptible, 'yes' men...
What it means to be 'MAN'... is to listen to thy Heart, the lotus, the grou ds of the soul; man is synonymous with the Soul as man was made in the image of God; the 'humanity' in man is the nature of Christ or Krishna; these virtues, divinities, God's come through us -- some conceive others recieve, and others are without.
Congratulations 'modern' scientists and folks, you done great job screwing peoples lives over, people never activating 'dharma' or God realization.
You are fake, deluded, liars, yes man, impious, fools! Each and everyone of you here.
I don’t know any scientist or historian or biologist that we are more intelligent than those that live in in medieval times or even at any time in our past as a distinct species .
We just know a lot more about the world around us.
Our greatest intellect may have been a hunter gatherer on the plains of Africa long before we developed farming . If he had been born today he may have been our greatest scientist .
This view you have of what scientist think is really misinformed of what they do think
Oh and I can’t speak to the others you mentioned , but I don’t consider myself a materialist . In fact, I reject that position because it cannot be demonstrated
The mind is what gives, observes and develops the body, spirit and soul. The mind loves to repeat a process till it reaches a profound stage of en-light-en-ment. The Head is always part of the Body. The head is a beast and knows how to take control of its properties.
Dude hit an important point about "danger." Consciousness came about when your ancestor in the primordial sea had to detect, intrepret, then escape the predator trying to bite his head off so he could live long enough to reproduce.
Consciousness is just an advanced self-awareness...
@@ManiBalajiC Nothing is "just" anything.
@@ManiBalajiC your comment is just an advanced nonsense...
@@ManiBalajiC Proto-consciousness or
Cosmic consciousness or
The ocean of consciousness.
The brain makes all these proto-consciousness coherent to become consciousness or the mind like a TV set that receives signals.
@@christopher_ecclestone I have no use for a theology that claims to know the answers to deep questions but bases its arguments on the beliefs of a single tribe. I am a practicing Christian but not a believing Christian. To me, to worship God means to recognize that mind and intelligence are woven into the fabric of our universe in a way that altogether surpasses our comprehension.
"God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension."
Dyson 2002a
.
Mind, God , Religion part 2
Freeman Dyson
.
"God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension."
.
I personally don't believe that our consciousness requires brains. My personal belief is that the planet Earth itself is conscious that all planets are conscious and the universe is self is conscious and that the universe is mental. I like metaphysics. I have experienced the powers are metaphysics the laws of attraction and be unseen sciences that man can never understand no matter how many telescopes and a red machine's he creates these things can never show you the other side of reality. Real reality is unseen the physical world in my opinion is just that physical and it is not real.
There is absolutely no evidence brain produces consciousness. But there is evidence consciousness extends beyond the brain. Look up Non Local Consciousness and Out of Body Experiences. I've had such an experience and I can tell you without any doubt that my consciousness extended beyond my body. There is no need to include spirituality in this equation. I am simply saying I do not think neurons produce awareness and therefore, from my own experiences, I can conclude that my awareness is beyond the physical processes in the brain.
Consciousness didn't emerge .
It was everything that emerged out of consciousness.
Cosmic consciousness existed before matter existed.
Matter can't make or direct itself.
Energy can't make or direct itself.
They require instructions which we call Functional information.
Everything requires intent and purpose.
.
Every particle contains functional information.
Thoughts are information.
Therefore consciousness exists everywhere.
Cosmic consciousness.
.
The brain is an antenna of the consciousness that creates the mind.
Like the antenna of a TV set.
If the brain or antenna is damaged, we get a bad reception or no reception. Then a person becomes a vegetable.
where do u think it comes from then? why does the brain’s physical state follow such a close, if not perfect, correlation to an individual’s experience (take brain damage patients as examples). why do u think chemicals in the mind such as dopamine affect emotion and motivation? the more I’ve learned about neuroscience, the more experiences i’ve been able to relate to the mind’s physical attributes. clearly, if the brain somehow isn’t responsible for consciousness, it must still provide some essential role given that when its physical characteristics undergo changes, the individual’s experience changes as a direct reflection of that physical state. you claim to not be entering the realm of the spiritual, but unless you have some higher dimensional theory or something, that’s essentially where we’ve arrived.
regardless, I hope we can both at least agree that the mind has an important role. I’m curious what that role is in your theory. I’m not attacking you, I just want a more clear picture of what your thoughts are, because I couldn’t derive any kind of clear claim from ur original comment other than that u think consciousness is “beyond your body”
@@longextinct
Keep in mind a couple things.
1, brain is a concept created by consciousness
2, brain has even an incomplete definition with respect to consciousness
Regarding correlation. Think of the tv analogy. There is a correlation with certain parts of the tv screen with language. The edges generally don’t have mouths. The mouths of the characters typically are found near the center of the screen. So that must be the language center, right?
How do you know your consciousness extended beyond your body during this experience? I know it felt like it did , but how do you know this experience wasn’t generated internally ?
Our of body experiences can be generated by hypoxia, drugs , trauma ect .there is no evidence they are not illusionary.
No individual who has experienced NDE for example has been able to tell the researchers what was written on the top of the cupboard in the operating theatre despite their testimony that they felt themselves rise above their body and look down at themselves , the surgeons and the room .
They just felt like they did . The experiences felt real to them .
That doesn’t mean they were real
@@tonyatkinson2210
How do you know any experience you have regarding the external world is real?
One thing is for sure, no one knows what consciousness is or where it comes from. Plenty of theories but that’s all they are, theories..
pythagoras studied with meditators and claimed to recall 20 previous lives. the level of a beginner. get with it and get a clue.
Skip the erroneous self perspective and consciousness will become easy to understand. The self is an effect, not a cause. E g we are automatons.
Then you’re not reasoning. GIGO. You’ve refuted yourself
I dont know why guys insiste NEVER show up true evidence. It isnt correted neuro funcions proceedings. He experience are lacking processes in brains evidence. He words are cover up his mislead neuros proceedings.
There is no such thing as a "mind/body" problem. We know what a mind is because it is all we know. And we have no clue what a body is, what matter is. Knowing about one thing and not knowing about another is an example of human knowledge and ignorance, not some "problem".
Most people think they know what matter is. And they’ll accuse you of all sorts of hints for questioning that
@@deanodebo Physics is the study of the behavior of matter and energy. Physics does not have any knowledge of what matter is or why it behaves the way it does.
But physics is very good at predicting the behavior of matter and energy in many circumstances. It has use. And that is enough.
@@jackarmstrong5645
Right. So your OP I guess was assuming physics is the only rational investigation in life?
Otherwise I’m not sure why you deny the mind/body problem or why you’re singularly focused on physics
@@deanodebo What other discipline is looking at the body? Looking at matter?
As I said we all fully know what a mind is. It is all we know.
@@jackarmstrong5645
Well we know the mind and body interact but we don’t understand how.
We also know abstract entities exist beyond matter. Transcendental categories like numbers, logic, induction, the self, etc
So the point is if physics can’t handle metaphysics (duh), then we open up all sorts of ideas.
And remember, physics can never prove anything or even make truth claims. So if you’re limiting your investigation to physics, good luck!
The space between you and I is eternal energy. Distortion is the problem of humanity. If you think the bible, Chinese and some west African cosmology don't hold the truth to some of the issues you face today in this part of the developed world, you have definitely underestimated yourself and the people you look down on. Residual effect start from when you think it - don't let energy on the go or emotion steal and kill your extraordinary supernatural mind.
No language no consciousness.
Brains are not conscious. No, it is the self-aware *"agent"* that sits at the throne of the mind that is conscious.
X-Files
Humans (love) vs. Vampires (greed)
Consciousness vs. Unconsciousness
Light vs. Dark
Help vs. Sanction
Feed vs. Starve
Comfort vs. Torture
Pianos vs. Bombs
Harmony vs. Conflict
Peace vs. War
Heart vs. Ego
Gold vs. Lead
Heaven vs. Hell
Vampires (greed) are blind and cannot see the ignorance of transforming heaven (peace) into hell (war). The capitalist counting corpses are also blind and cannot see the ignorance of destroying the planet.
Unlike earthling poets, artists, musicians, mystics, human beings and creators of joy...the capitalist counting corpses that rule US can't create harmony (real intelligence) because vampires (greed) are ignorant (dead).
Vampires (greed) who suck the joy out of life have joined the zombies who eat the futures of their children.
Zombie Apocalypse is here and happening now.
I don't know why atheists have such trouble with the idea that consciousness is not in the brain, it's elsewhere and perhaps everywhere. I think it's because that sounds too much like theology. Watching a few Donald Hoffman videos got me wondering about consciousness. Maybe consciousness is just part of nature, like the brain.
Consciousness is clearly affected by (and can be manipulated by) what happens in the brain.
@@cosminvisan : Failure to communicate. Consider the value of a complete sentence.
@@cosminvisan How sad for you.
I also like Rupert Sheldrake videos about dogs that find their way home, 1,000 miles after being abandoned.
@Tim Bucks : According to the American Kennel Club, dogs (and many other animals) can sense the Earth's magnetic field and use it to navigate.
$37,000 biweekly profits, His grace is sufficient in my life!!!
@Blake Gods will c'mon Dude... you're not! once I was making enough profit from her services I started referring her to my siblings and family relations... You know how well good news travel Huh!!!!
Great to see you guys talking about Olivia, This woman changed the game for me.
@Claudia Massive yes, same here I just messaged her now and I invested $60k. The process is very easy to adapt to.
Joseph LeDoux - What Makes Brains Conscious?
This really is an unfair question, simply due to the fact that "conscious," is still an arguable field of study.
That being said;
The multitude of processes in the brain allow for compound complex thinking. Whilst animals are limited to their daily activities for their dreams, humanity is capable of retaining past and present, while aiming for the future aspirations. This is the separation between a human and a tree. Both ARE alive, simply with different purpose.
What makes a Human Brain Conscious, is the ability to interact with the universal system it is a part of.
A brain makes consciousness. Consciousness doesn't make a brain. I think the real problem of consciousness is coming up with a proper definition of what "it" is. It is definitely a process and definitely requires a brain.
yes that is the opinion of every 10yo on the street. unfortunately thats not the empirical claim made by those with trained introspection
@@cosminvisan thanks, I knew someone would understand
Hilariously wrong. Of course it's consciousness that is making the brain. The brain only exists inside of consciousness, it's just a representation of the process of cognition. Thinking that the brain makes consciousness is like thinking what's visible on your screen generates the processing of the computer rather than the other way around.
@@outisnemo8443 Your example confirms what he has said, hilariously.
@@hhpoa:
No, it demonstrates the utter stupidity and embarrassing irony of what he's saying. The fact that you think otherwise just makes it clear that you are equally moronic, if not even more so.