Giulio Tononi - Is Consciousness Entirely Physical?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 май 2021
- Here's the big question about consciousness, our inner experience of what things feel like. Is consciousness a product of the physical world alone? Because if consciousness is the output of the physical brain by itself, however complex, then consciousness as physicalism would defeat those who believe, or hope for, the existence of nonphysical realities.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on the mind-body problem: bit.ly/2RsUqem
Giulio Tononi is a neuroscientist and psychiatrist who holds the David P. White Chair in Sleep Medicine, as well as a Distinguished Chair in Consciousness Science, at the University of Wisconsin.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
My experience tells me this is a James Bond villain he's interviewing.
Ya where’s Kim?!
Lol
LOL
If I close my eyes, he kinda sounds a little like Ricardo Montalban. So I'm thinking sci-fi villain. 😄
No fluffy, white cat on his lap...
This chat with Giulio Tononi is inspirational. For axiomatic thinking, it would pay us to have a look at Charles Sanders Peirce and his categories. Loosely, Peirce's categories translate to 1) Motivation: All experiences are driven by motivation. A conscious observer has to be MOTIVATED to define what matters (pragmatism) in order to make its choices from its ecosystem. 2) Association (associative learning): All experiences are associated with prior experiences; 3) Habituation (continuity): Motivations and associations have to be habituated in order to give a conscious observer continuity across time. Let us revisit Tononi's schedule of axiom's in the context of Peirce's axioms:
1) Why does it exist? Motivation; 2) Why is it structured? Associations; 3) Why it is informative? Motivation AND association... it is informative if the associations MATTER (have meaning) to the observer. Axioms 4 and 5, why it is integrated, why it is exclusive, again, revolve around motivation and association. The all-essential axiom that is not explicated in Tononi's schedule (though it can be inferred) is habituation.
Charles Sanders Peirce, with his theory on semiotics, is the Isaac Newton of the cognitive sciences. But even better than that is that his theory can be extended to ALL observers: The biosemiotic theory of Jakob von Uexküll relates. Together, Peirce's semiotics synthesized with Uexküll's biosemiotics merits a closer look. Their synthesis provides answers to problems that have plagued Judeo-Christian cultures. Mind-body problem? Solved. There is no mind-body problem when you factor in the role of the body is determining the kinds of choices that an observer makes.
Notice that I said observer. Not human, not God, nor angel, nor soul, nor devil. Observer. All living things are observers, and the kinds of bodies in which they are "trapped" predispose them to the kinds of choices that define what they become. This is an insight of a Copernican scale, for it removes the human from the center of the universe. Human consciousness is defined by the exact same laws that define all consciousness. Motivation; Association; Habituation.
Notice also that cells are observers... or at least neurons are. As per Harry Klopf's book "the hedonistic neuron" and Eric Kandel's research on Aplysia, neurons also learn by association and habituation.
That's my 0.02 cents-worth for the weekend.
Why questions are of two kinds; how? and from what purpose/to what end? If you revisit your comment with that in mind it'll clear right up.
Best definition I was ever given of consciousness was "awareness of awareness."
Ha! Life speaks in riddles! I once heard something very similar along the lines of the conscious human mind being “self-conscious of it’s own self-consciousness”.
We build a mental model of the world that is made of thoughts.
Close one's eyes and one can wander one's domicile in one's imagination.
When one sees one's body in the world and
one touches it like one touches any object,
one adds a model of one's body to one's model of the world.
One starts to refer to one's model of one's body as one's self or self concept and
with time and experience one's self becomes exceedingly complex.
Now, it is my self that is conscious. (I'll bet your self is conscious too).
It is my self that sees the fist a coming and
it is my self that moves my muscles to avoid it.
Interesting it is that my conscious self consists of an exceedingly complex thought.
I suggest consciousness is just awareness. Though awareness of awareness seems a useful point for arguing that consciousness exists. Because why would we talk about awareness (which requires being aware of awareness) if consciousness didn't exist? I take this nearly directly from Annaka Harris's book.
@@__Henry__ 'To be aware of things' and 'to be conscious of things', both phrases have to me identical meanings.
When the complex thought that is my self is modulated by signals from my sense organs or memory or reasoning processes or system noises, it is the modulations in my self which are the thoughts which are of what I am aware or conscious.
If the self remained unchanged by thinking or unchanged by input there could be no being conscious, no awareness.
Don't you think?
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL I virtually agree with your first sentence. I think I absolutely agree with your second sentence. I disagree with your third sentence, though you use the word "conscious" rather than "consciousness" so I'm not sure whether you mean "conscious of things" or "conscious."
I do think that "difference" is a deep explanatory principle regarding perception in that we may not be able to cognize or identify that which has no alternative form or contrasting background like, say, good and evil, light and dark, a shape in field of view of also what isn't that shape.
I might posit that difference/change/fluctuation is necessary for attributing identity to or "meta-izing" something but not necessary for experience. So, no, experience or conscious*ness* remains in absence of change, but yes the experience or awareness **of** something seems to stop or at least can stop in absence of change (of or about the thing of which one is aware.)
Note, I'm sidestepping your use of "self," here. I'm not sure how important that is for you.
Robert is absolutely right to press Giulio when is talking about information and the uniqueness of experience. Distinctness is surely a different matter from qualitative difference.
Everything is easily refuted by causal determinism.
Filming on location on Dagobah must have been really expensive xD
That's not dagabogh....it's clearly the forest moon of Endor 😂
Very interesting to hear a neuroscientist who sounds like a phenomenologist!
What's missing is the heightened consciousness and grasp of much, much smaller moments as we are all capable of in experiences of great drama or life threatening instances. After skating at Olympic trials, I exited the ice into the "kiss and cry" area to wait for scores with my coach Frank Carroll. As the teleplay re-ran slo-mo parts of my triple jumps, I saw years later that the microphones were still hot, picking up my exchange with Frank. He asked me what happened on the first triple Lutz. I had done the jump, landed correctly. Only he and I would have known of any otherwise imperceptible diversion from a good jump--but I knew immediately to what he referred. I spoke for the 30 seconds they showed sold motion replays about the takeoff and what I did in the air to make corrections before the landing. 4 paragraphs of info...on a jump lasting .7 seconds.
Car accident victims etc have this same suspension of time experience. What's going on, here? It seems to be a non-match to these 5 edicts, or at least 3 of them.
Alot of great insights in the comments here alluding to patterned themes including but not limited to non-locality, emergence, quantum mechanics, one vs many, thought space, unity, mathematics and the limitations of science. Loving the discourse because it indeed moves us closer to the truth.
All showing consciousness is entirely physical, and denying the facts of neuroscience for "what if" doesn't move "closer to the truth", it moves it father from reality. There is a reason arguments from ignorance are a logical fallacy.
@@kennethc2466 but to assume there is only the material judging from our 5th senses that only evolved to help us survive is pretty arrogant and delusional. You saw the last dark matter discovery?
@@ayoubzahiri1918 Do you think your platitudes are helpful, or the science that refutes it? We have instruments that are FAR better than human senses, x-rays telescopes, CRT scans, radar, etc. Yet, your platitude relies on the human senses, as if I even brought them up against your argument from ignorance?
That's just plain dishonest, AFTER I CITED NEUROSCIENCE.
Further, your "dark matter" drivel is a false equivocation, as science predicted it. Care to cite the peer-reviewed science demonstrating consciousness outside the brain? Or just insult me via your own straw man drivel?
@@kennethc2466 Forget about 'dark matter' and think about a different question: why do pain fibers firing feel painful rather than some other way? Neuroscientists cannot answer that question. Yet, we know from experience that it does hurt. Physicalists ("everything is entirely physical") claim that the feeling of pain is created by the neurons, but they cannot explain how. The burden of proof rests with the claimant. Other philosophies of mind (i.e. panpsychism, etc.) do not make this claim, instead arguing to one degree or another than mind is fundamental and therefore does not need to be explained by physical causes.
@@kennethc2466 It seems that advances in all those physical areas raise more questions and expose more gaps. Particularly about consciousness and free will. For all we know up to now, how do we begin to deterministically and definitely define your individual consciousness vs mine?
You and I are both configurations of atoms, quarks, whatever. I get neural correlates in brain activity to some acts of consciousness. But what it is the mechanism exactly? Why are you you and I am me in this context? Neurons are firing, state is produced, recorded, acted upon. Again, how does work to make you vs me...when we could have similar activity, even state in our brains?
Are you you because of the specific set of atoms that comprise your brain? That happen to change as well over time. Give me the laws, state, and causality here.
I'm a software engineer. I don't think the brain is a Turing machine. Nor that we operate on binary state. The brain computes, and surely consciousness is impacted by physical processes...but I have no idea how. It almost seems the brain is a component upon which and through which consciousness operates...back to full circle, that consciousness being you vs me vs anybody...why the uniqueness of experience and consciousness?
"If your brain's not normal you'll have a different experience"
Experiences happen inside of consciousness.
Even creatures with no brain have their own kind of experiences, which happen inside consciousness.
@@andsalomoni proof?
@@TheMagnificentGman It's not a theorem. It is a philosophical position.
But experiences self-evidently happen inside of consciousness.
Can you have an "unconscious experience"? Consciousness is prior to all experiences, by definition.
@@andsalomoni Whose definition? Experiences don't happen inside consciousness. Consciousness is awareness of experiences
@@TheMagnificentGman Do you have experiences, of any kind, without being conscious?
"Unconscious experience" is simply self contradictory. So being aware, or conscious, call it like you prefer, is prior to all experiences, including all we can study about the brain. Awareness, as a basis for experience, precedes the brain.
Even the environment is BEAUTIFUL 🙏💛💓🌈❤️💜💪
@Alpha Omega even better, I'd love it
In my opinion, there will be no maximum for moment of experiment. For instance, everyone have been watching this video for this consciousness today. If anyone, for the first time, be aware this subject, then will start their initial consciousness for this moment of experience. If they are starting to be curious about it, the image of any talk from this video automatically record and store in the brain. For the next group of audiences, mostly of them are had initial consciousness about things that are relating to this experiment (this initial consciousness always redefining overtime as your experiment about this still moving on). The difference is how the initial consciousness redefined (moments of experiment) and recalled from the brain (storage, structure, energy).
Brilliant, thank you.
What if we`re all the same consciousness just looking through different windows?
For some reason this was more profound than anything said in the entire video
Yes , does time pass equally for us all...if we were stripped to the tiniest matter in our bodies , and if matter is under the influence of consciousness like time... would time and consciousness be the same for everyone's tiniest piece of matter?
If the Buddhists are correct, probably the way it works....One consciousness having a multitude of experiences.
That's deep. Thought provoking.
What if we have all the same stomach and we are just having digestion through different mouths?
Excellent. Thanks.
Mr. Robert is right in reminding that some lesions in the brain cause perception to differ, namely the Broca’s aphasia and the Wernickie’s aphasia. Actually, according to Dr. Sapolsky, when you have language that uses pictograph instead of an alphabet, like the Chinese, you even get slightly different aphasias.
No, it was an irrelevant criticism here. The axiom is conserved in all of those cases. The experience is different, but the experience is still one.
In other words, if you can only see the shape and not the colour, then the colour simply is not a component of your experience. The experience that you are having is still integrated.
I agree with some of Giulio's logic. It is related to what I stated in the last video. Every probability in this universe that has ever occurred needed to occur for this very moment to happen. The same is for the past and future. As a scientist I do not see a place in time where there was the purity of absence. This universe and each iteration of universes before and after this one must exist for all the quantum properties to exist in this universe. We can't place a predictable value on a quantum state because we don't exist in the previous and future states in this universe. Your experiences are a collapsed probability wave function bound to this very moment in time only in relation to the sum of all past and future events.
Where does that leave the self, the experiencer of one's own (and only one's own) experiences?
@@BugRib As the experiencer, one would only perceive the action of free will and a consciousness within ones own constraints but outside those constraints of this universe looking upon it... one will see everything as predictable probability. Basically your perception of free will and consciousness is an illusion only observable by yourself. So it is natural to believe you have control. I do understand. Normally I leave religion out until it is the truth... With that in mind all that I said proves the existence of a God and how that God would be all knowing. I do believe however that God is not a magical one. For this universe and all others to be the way they are, a God must be a knowledgeable God. After all, any technology advanced enough is indistinguishable from magic without a proper mindset. More on your question, the experiencer and all of their experiences simply exist because they must. Ask yourself these questions, how can one be a God if their at one point was nothing to be God of, how can that God be a infinite God without an infinite number of universes, how can God be a magical one when the universes that exist have predictive probabilities from an unbound view, then lastly how can a God know everything without every universe's probabilities being bound to one another. I hope that I have cleared up some of your life's questions.
Highly intelligent, insightful, cultured, and handsome. Yup, obviously a Bond Villain.
This guy just told me I can see a shirt, because there is a shirt in front of me. And when it's dark and quiet, I won't see or hear much. Groundbreaking...
You need good weed
I agree with these axioms. Moreover it could be that each experience has its own identity as if a different person is born and the current is based on the past and it assumes the identity of the past. Then if the experiences are quantised how does the illusion of things in motion work? Probably it’s simply derived from a very good accuracy for very short memory (like milliseconds memory being almost perfectly accurate).
Much simpler than that, experience is only ever known in and by consciousness. Trace your perceptions backwards to see this simple truth.
It's an interesting concept meaning the more information we get in a certain moment, the stronger is the conscious experience. But I don't feel it this way. The strongest conscious experience I feel is when I meditate; meaning just observe, using all my senses with the highest concentration possible in a silent familiar spot in a forest.
High-amplitude gamma wave synchrony can be self-induced via meditation. Long-term practitioners of meditation such as Tibetan Buddhist monks exhibit both increased gamma-band activity at baseline as well as significant increases in gamma synchrony during meditation, as determined by scalp EEG.[2] fMRI on the same monks revealed greater activation of right insular cortex and caudate nucleus during meditation.[42] The neurobiological mechanisms of gamma synchrony induction are thus highly plastic.[43] This evidence may support the hypothesis that one's sense of consciousness, stress management ability, and focus, often said to be enhanced after meditation, are all underpinned by gamma activity. At the 2005 annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience, the current Dalai Lama commented that if neuroscience could propose a way to induce the psychological and biological benefits of meditation without intensive practice, he "would be an enthusiastic volunteer."[44]
@@miproci8994 I won't question all the factoids, but as far as the INTERVIEW, what do you think is the source of consciousness? Peace.
@@Bill..N Sir Roger Penrose, Visitor (1980) in the School of Mathematics, discusses his controversial theory about the quantum origins of consciousness. He starts with the premise that consciousness is not computational, and it's beyond anything that neuroscience, biology, or physics can now explain.19 paź 2016
www.ias.edu › in-the-media
Roger Penrose on Why Consciousness Does Not Compute
@@Bill..N this topic doesn't make sense as long as you operate on linear reality, all these attempts to define are impossible. Until you see that this reality is the greatest possible paradox. that this universe was created out of nothing and is completely empty.
@@Bill..N all reality is a conglomerate of concepts of mind perceived through the senses with the senses. Does the future exist beyond imagination? No, the past is the same. the present is also elusive. It is clearly visible that space-time is an illusion. I suspect that it is the key issue that creates reality.
If Alan Watts and the best 80's villan of all time had a child.
Alan Watts Was the greatest villian of the 80s!
@@havenbastion do you mean Watts' ghost?
HAHAHAHA!!!! Perfect
I love the way modern science and spirituality is beginning to combine.
I found the discussion by Dr. Mark Solms on his book called, The Hidden Spring: A journey to the Source of Consciousness “ The Brainstem” a compelling naturalistic explanation for consciousness.
I saw him interviewed and I agree; very interesting, seems about right.
Sounds like another desperate move to localize consciousness and make it originate from form! Good luck with that! ‘Spacetime is doomed’
I second your statement, when you look ar Mark's presentation of evidence of the Children with no cortex and compare that with Giulio's ramblings on the 'structured' experience which is obviously not available to blind and deaf persons.. it seems that Mark is getting at something much more fundamental to consciousness than many of the other ruminators on the subject.
It was highly interesting.
Go beyond theory, explore personal consciousness/awareness by singing *HU* daily. Search how to sing *HU* as a tuning fork to align with different frequencies. "if you want to find the secrets of the universe, think interms of energy, frequency and vibrations.'- Nikola Tesla.
YES and that was what michelangelo was trying to show in his painting creation of adam and it's location in our brain.
No one would know however, I opt to understand it is Non-Physical after self experimentation and my 'consciousness energy' is all around me and not simply crammed into one tiny little space called the brain (or the illusory 'mind' as some people reference).
We are all connected to everything, both living and non-living and part of existence. Some would argue differently! I choose not to argue at all.
The tick rate of consciousness is like musical phrasing
The entire multiverse IS Consciousness. The brain is a monitor for the timeless, Pure-Consciousness-In-Itself that is Spinoza's "Substance" of the universe. Tapping into IT is difficult by listening to videos alone, although this is a good start. Ultimately, go beyond thought and concepts altogether and tap into the Transcendental Absolute, Sat-Chit-Ananda. No problem. Access "Mahamritunjaya mantra - Sacred Sounds Choir". Listen to it for 5 min per day for at least two weeks, and merge into Consciousness in the state of Samadhi/Satori. In regard to the number of units per extended time, this has an ontological problem. There's a LIMIT, that we can transcend. Georg Cantor thought of this paradox. He came up with levels of Infinity, then proclaimed AHA!. (There MUST be a limit to the levels higher Infinities, which he called "The Absolute Infinite". We can experience this directly, but the limit is "The Infinite Absolute", just "beyond" Cantor's notion.
Very interesting conversation, of course, but I'm wondering how they sound like they're actually sitting in a small room with close-quarters reverberation, as opposed to a very "dry" nearly reverb-free out-in-the-forest sound?
I first thought that his original statement that you cannot look to the brain for conciousness was rediculious, BUT I think we was saying that you can't look at the design of a microprocessor in order to figure out how PowerPoint works.
Precisely. Your experience of your own mind doesn’t even suggest to you that you have a brain. It’s only by cracking open the skulls of others do we infer that we have a brain. But even people who study the brain spend very little time aware of the fact that they themselves have one.
Your brain is not just a processing machine so the analogy doesn't quite work.
@@IllustriousCrocoduck Why not? Then what is it? And where do you beleive consciousness comes from?
@@blaster-zy7xx brains also store memories and have control components for the rest of the body. So a closer analogy would be to maybe a computer.
I agree that consciousness is within the brain, I was just making a small point about the analogy.
Yes.
Consciousness is a subjective attribute. Only you know that you are conscious. Nobody else can observe it. One infers that others are conscious as well, by analogy to oneself, but otherwise, there is no external evidence for consciousness, only for complex behavior. We could say the same if we encounter true general artificial intelligence (we are not yet there, I reassure you).
How about true Scotsmen? Causal determinism is the most likely reality model.
Giulio Tononi is one of the most intelligent people I have encountered. He was Gerald Edelman's right hand. Their achievements were spectacular but limited bu the computational power available at the time. I do not know if anybody is continuing on their trail.
About the experience "being one". If a congenital cataract gets operated on too late, the poor subject sees color, light, shape, and movement floating in space without any coherent meaning. To be useful. the perceived image has to be "integrated" into one, as Tononi said. I think this is what he means.
I do not see that they actually answered the question in the title of the video. However, non-physical realities and consciousness exist due to the experience there. A new Descartes saying would be, "I experience outside of my body viewing my body from a distance, therefore I exist beyond my body". At higher levels of consciousness experience, Descartes might say, "I project my body and personality experience, therefore I exist as the foundation of my physical experience".
Is it me or does he sound like the character from the tv show Fantasy Island from the 80s?
That other Humans are having these discussions & explorations about Reality........makes me profoundly Reassured & Happy to be a Human.
Hmm, this is a bit out there regarding the nature of consciousness, but that's half the fun lol: I programmed a computer sim once that behaved a bit like inflationary cosmogenesis. Curiously, outside all the inflated volumes/universes it generated, was a residual state of noise which entropically flowed between the countless universes. Anyways, although locally was basically statistical noise, integrated across the countless inflated volumes, the noise diffusely encoded information and dynamics quite distinct from the internal physics of each inflationary volume, which were essentially limited by their local boundary condition. Even though various emergent symmetries constrained information states inside these universes, this trans-universe integrated information state which wafted over all the universes, acted like for want of better words, like some all pervasive spirit causally influencing things very subtly and essentially entirely subjectively, as its own organizational state was not constrained by the internal physical laws of each universe and was thus open to possessing much more free will so to speak, than the physically constrained information content within a universe....
Advice please if I got the idea correctly. Human being consciousness performs the same task as an Artificial Intellect: gathering information from sensors, analyzing it and then put to memory as an experience, that later may be used for a process of analyzing of next experience
The study the experiences of near death but what about being under anesthesia? It is perhaps interesting to learn about that bottom level.
Is conscious experience based on information, or contains information? If conscious experience based on information, then determining how the physical and non-physical interact for information could indicate if consciousness from physical brain or non-physical mind.
Consciousness is a subset of mind which is a subset of brain.
The Tao that can be told of is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
Consciousness is prior to all. All systems and labels arise within consciousness.
What???
Consciousness is a subset of mind which is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain.
Knowledge: the deeper spiritual intelligence that lives within each person. This intelligence exists beyond the realm of the intellect and is the source of all that we know. Intrinsic understanding. Eternal wisdom to guide us, to protect us and to lead us to a greater participation in life. Knowledge is the timeless part of us which cannot be influenced, manipulated or corrupted. (definition from The Great Waves of Change, Marshall Vian Summers, New Message org)
"How can there not be a way to Knowledge when it is your True Self? How can there not be a way for Knowledge to express itself when it is the most natural form of expression?... There is a way to Knowledge. It requires skill and desire. Both will take time to develop. You must learn to value the true and not to value the false, and it takes time to learn to separate the two and to recognize them. It takes time to learn that the false does not satisfy you and that the true does satisfy you. This must be learned through trial and error and through contrast. As you approach Knowledge, your life becomes more full, more certain, and more direct. As you go away from it, you re-enter confusion, frustration, and anger." (Steps to Knowledge, Marshall Vian Summers, New Message org)
Thank you
No experience without a body. Counciousness comes from the body.
Integrated and structured seem like contradictions to me. He admits that the distinctions between anything in consciousness are merely conceptual, yet doesn’t seem to think that implies the structure is merely conceptual (which it is).
Trying to explain consciousness with consciousness, a self reference problem
Not sure if consciousness is physical, But I'm sure this guy can make a good movie villain
Personalization algorithms on android, they listen and watch literally everything, it seems to me that even the images from the cameras because sometimes it catches them because they run in the background. The information bubble gets tighter and tighter.
Don't use that stuff.
Giulio looks like a very knowledgeable guy but I am now more confused than before about consciousness. There is something in me that tells me that I am aware that I exist because of my brain and in particular my 5 senses (6 if I were a woman). If someone beheads me, I don't have more consciousness, that's a very simple way to put it.
What is the sixth sense that you are mentioning in your comment?
@@ik1408 In the good ol' times they used to say that women possess "intuition" as a big difference when compared to men. I don't know if it is still true. Men could have also acquired it.
@@juliocepeda3896 no. I mean everyone has intuition.
@@boomyoulookingforthis1362 yes, everyone has it, we just suppress or ignore it.
Looking at the thumbnail for one second I thought the interviewee was Viggo Mortensen. The guy speaks seven languages, I would not put it past him to speak on the philosophy of physics.
EDIT: Though this guy could be his Lawful Evil brother.
Same here lol 😂
Is consciousness subject to evolution: does it have a gene or a system of genes? Or is there in consciousnesses non-linguistic an absence of a gene? Are animals, plants and microorganisms all missing a genetic note? If we could find a communicating bacteria how would a rapport be established? In the language of chemistry ⚗?
You raise some very interesting questions! A tree is a living thing, yet we have no access to some means of communication with them. Although I have seen studies where the effects of the photosynthesis and propagation of plant life can be altered with sound. Even the most intelligent Humans have up to only access to 10% of cerebral function. Perhaps with access to more we find other physical/chemical & metaphysical ways of communications plant life and our broader environment.
This is great. Thank you!
Yes. Next.
Consciousness; the manifest experience of now, objective and subjective. Is a waterfall conscious? Is reacting to the circumstances of the environment in a complex way a sign of consciousness? What is the purpose of consciousness?
Every experience is structured. I agreed to that point but Tononi talked about Tonal consciousness but he has no idea about Nagual consciousness and how it creates a scene within a scene by our day consciousness and a dream within a dream by our night consciousness. His ideas about information supports a unique experience that has a oneness nature is correct but he doesn't realize we are eight separate conscious structures that talk to one another as subject and object.
I didn't get the last part. So is consciousness physical or not? 🤔
This was the first explanation that drove home the fact in an understandable way of how precious we all are.
Yes
Truth should be in physics first
Imagination should be in second part
After plan only we work
No plan =no work
according to plan we get experience.
By birth no one is experience.
I don't know who is he but I love what he Is saying.
Or you work on metaphysics, where physics and spiritual make the connection
@@experiencemystique4982
I don't know about metaphysics
But I love research.
Religion is belief system
Where science is work system.
Scientists are also have born in beliefs either home society or country.
And everyone to born in beliefs society home or country.
When child born he/she don't know about religion or scientific things too.
By looking society after grow up baby decide where to believe science which not believe religion or religion which don't appreciate science.
I love to research.
Yes I believe physics as well as religion.
I believe religion because religion makes me clam and control of wishes
I'm now happy without money.
Neither I have enemies nor the person to listen me.
When I used to believe in religion system there was many friends who used to listen me
Now when i talk about physics no friends are close with me now.
I'm alone now.
Truth is this I don't have learn any religion books.
Truth is this I always thik about universe people, earth, plant, animals and I research
I listen the professor, scientist word and read too and analysis what they are saying truth or not.
For me time is fundamental and one
Time is work in two way
Universal time.
Body time exist.
There is no multiverse.
Universe is only one
Universe is not expanding
I don't believe big bang is beginning or end of Universe
Universe has no beginning and end.
Universe is empty and creation over empty is Universe.
Just I want to write book.
I want to write in English but I don't have good English.
Yes I believe religion as well as physic
Because religion is here and physic too.
But for me religion is one I don't know which religion your family fallow or you fallow but all religions pray one god.
One god in different name.
Everyone is praying one god in different way but lack of ignorance religion violence is existing.
It disappoint me.
Sorry for my English.
Nice ;)
Nature 557, S8-S12 (2018)
Consciousness cannot be computed: it must be built into the structure of the system.
That's not a meaningful statement.
Another way of tackling this question - is consciousness born ( with the body) or has it been transferred , is it transferable.
I think you've asked the fundamental question everyone struggles with. Essentially, if it's born with us, then an afterlife is unlikely. If it's transferrable, then an afterlife is possible. It's hard to see how it won't die with us if it's born with us. I don't mean to reduce what you've said to something overly simplistic. Feel free to correct what I've said here.
@@toddsmith5715 exactly !
However - let’s consider that technology will soon be able to upload our consciousness - will it remain trapped within the confines of this technology- eternal existence in a ‘machine’ .... a ‘ghost in the machine’ comes to mind. Could this offer eternal existence? Would this deny the natural consciousness freedom from the body given that consciousness does survive physical death. The answer to all lies in the understanding of consciousness, in my view it is the holy grail , it could end the science versus religion feud.
You can’t upload consciousness, what you’d be ‘uploading’ is memories. Well that’s not even true. Memories are not stored in the brain, they are accessed by the brain via neural antenna from the ‘field’ (see epigenetics)
@@meridethmatt ‘biology of belief’ amazing book .... that is where we differ - I have listened to 100 or more stories of NDE’s and I am convinced that a ‘upload’ is the process they experience. Taking a photo or a still of oneself was just the beginning video followed but now a new tech will soon promise eternal life - conscious uploads, early days but not that far . Uploaded Memories will be like uploading your ‘book of life’ ..... it will be ‘you’ and will not only be visual or passive but active and your very Essence will drive the experience. I believe A.i will soon prove or disprove this hypothesis.
I think that consciousness is just advanced information processing. It's not physical, but it's based and produced by physical processes.
Could time integrate information in brain producing mind / consciousness? Then integrated information converted to neuron signals to send message in brain?
What integrates the information in an experience?
It's not really a "thing"-just different regions in the brain communicating with one another.
6:07 "If your brain is not normal, you have a different experience". But, alas, this proves that consciousness is generated by the material, physical world. Doesn't it? It only takes a little physical intervention (for example, a lesion in the brain tissue) to make a person have totally different experiences and a totally different kind of consciousness.
Well consciousness is not the experience that we have. It is the awareness of that experience. The subject is the consciousness. Object changes but the subject doesn't.
If your television malfunctions, the picture you see is affected, and yet the tv show itself is created outside of the tv--the tv doesn't create the show. Just another way to look at it.
It seems that Tononi is confusing two issues. One thing is KNOWING all about cooking, science, sports, clairvoyance, telepathy, etc. and another is BEING a cook, scientist, sportsman, clairvoyant, telepathic, etc. Tononi and Robert are observing and communicating with each other, as if they were separate entities i.e., they are getting to know each other. Yet, perception (resulting from their own state of being) causes separation. Therefore, KNOWING may lead to BEING and viceversa. Hence, BEING implies experiencing KNOWING
It's not possible to separate unity from diversity, therefore any experience is perceived simultaneously as a whole and as all its different features.
You are not making sense.
I was rather hoping that he would come out and say that they have discovered our consciousness can exist without a physical body!!
Oh well!! Gonna go put on a black shirt and sit in a dark room and dye my hair black! 😂😂😂
i was looking for the same thing.
@@alv134mommy
Oh WOW! The same thing hey! Maybe there is something physical between us 😂😂😂😂...
consciously or subconsciously!
@@user-k229 :-) clearly!
Well, consciousness must be physical, but space is physical, not just matter, but energy and space and time. The absence of reality isnt real, it is imaginary, which is a construct of consciousness which must be real physicalness, so nothingness exists but is a quality of presence. The Millenium Prize Problem, P=NP, may be solved by this statment. And i shud win a million dollars. Whatevs what evs, i wanna make billions from my scifi book n movie of Psy V Cy or psychics vs cyborgs ,where psychics scientifically do what cyborgs do. I have experience of knowing when time is gonna flip on digital clocks or when a heater or ac or fridge will turn on off, on easter 2021 my lightbulb burn out, went out after i thought i dont want things to be able to read my thots from my psy v cy tech turning reality and i concentrated on the bulb, so either man can control electromagnetism or a mind reading tech burnt my bulb out. A simple experiment. But what evs. I just thought like 2 3 days ago, after rewatching the Big Bang Theory first minute of first episode, that hey, i cud make a super power of observance, or in my opinion obstruction, of a photon, what was discussed 8n the showz first minute, observance means 1 thing happens to a photon, no observance means many things happen, what if there was a superpower or a thing, then, hey,, i cud use this for psy v cy or sell to dc for Spectre, who is the embodiment of God or something, sell that there is many things happening at once in reality but when observed the man is just a man and not a omniscient omnipotent god, tho they are and they just seem to ge choosing greatly in perfect coincidence, but reality they are the embodiment of a god that is one w all possible realities. Very cool. Like, repost, to get me rich n sell to DC, or get my psy v cy ,psy by cy, sold.. The world will be better. Also, Stephen Baldwin's The Sanctuary church had a prophet that came to the youth group i went to at Sanctuary and he said id be a great teacher for God, and i knew he was gonna mention me being smart and a great man. Very weird. CTT. Also, check out my comments on ScienceClic English s pinned comments for their vids Hawking Radiation and A New Way To Visualize General Relativity i hope i disproved that 1 of 2 things isnt real, this vids guy is wrong that there isnt many experiences at once, which 8 think like, but i am diagnosed w schizophrenia and hear voices supposedly fr9m my mind that are like their own intelligences but we experience same stuff n i get clues to know hey i shud look at the clock cuz its about to change time, orrr i disproved that theres many things happening for the double slit experiment. Very cool stuff, i think. I think, therefor i am.
I wonder how many trillions of different sensory inputs make up one millisecond of consciousness?
I love the idea that consciousness is non local/non physical, but I see no reason for it, and have no problem with the idea that science will eventually be able to accurately describe how consciousness is formed in the brain.
Somehow I wish the interviewer would stop interrupting
**consciousness was "awareness of awareness**
Author of the represented definition has got the next step: to make definition for the thing that aware of awareness. Without it the first one - is uncertain
Don't know how this guy can say that there's only one you experiencing consciousness, one aspect of yourself. Because the minute you react faster than your conscious mind realizes what's happening: that's another aspect of yourself. In other words if your person is unconsciously registering stuff and reacting to it, that's still part of your consciousness. Or when you're sleeping you're in a whole other world in a dream and it's part of your consciousness the dream state. So if one of his axioms is wrong, then the whole thing is probably wrong.
basically you're saying there any many levels of consciousness...i AGREE...however i'd go that bit further and say consciousness is "non-local" and goes beyond the physical brain.
@@Dion_Mustard consciousness may not be loca,l but I don't see why that would have to be so. First off I think consciousness is reliant on the whole nervous system, not just the brain. We may perceive things that are not local to us (maybe our individual consciousness is receiving information from a great distance or another dimension or whatever), but that doesn't necessarily mean that our consciousness is not itself local. Or does it? 😄
@@rafeller9057 the opposite is true, the entire nervous system is reliant upon consciousness, and it doesn’t stop there.
@@rafeller9057 it is not local, it is able to perceive it by itself. Best of all, even the brain will generate a thought about what happened there, but it cannot recreate it in the imagination. As if it was also able to transmit information itself. there must be a record of everything she has experienced in her consciousness. that is, the resources of billions of human lives and trillions of animal lives. in fact, it must be the whole picture of everything. So the absolute. The time has come that any man can see this, the whole concept of enlightenment is no longer just for the chosen ones in India. Who meditate all their lives in the mountains.
@@miproci8994 that's bullshit. We wouldn't need biologists and paleontologists. We could instead just remember all the species that have gone extinct and that are constantly evolving.
This conversation did not address whether consciousness is entirely physical. Click bait title.
Actually it showed the limitations of how the physical can't necessarily explain it.
It depends what you mean by "physical".
Is a story physical ? Are my opinions physical ? Is software physical ? How about mathematics ?
Is Heaven physical ? God set the sun, moon and stars in Heaven according to Genesis 1:17
The gospel writers also thought Heaven is physical and you can see it from earth (Matthew 24:30)
The implication tells us nothing that we do not know. Even it looks a bit trivial. Even if consciousness is seen to be related to matter, we still do not even know what matter is in it's most fundamental state. Could it not be consciousness? There is a point of analysis that feels like a cat biting it's own tale. On the surface all sounds so evident. Deep down such questions cannot be answered (yet?).
Matter? They didn't find is energy stagnant??? Ah. Jesús said "faith which move mountains" in fact is higher vibrations applied to move the particles state on the matter... metaphysics 101. He couldn't explained 2000 years ago cause, even the smartest couldn't understand the meaning.
>consciousness is seen to be related to matter
It certainly is. All qualia relate to the information located in my brains at the present. My butt and the chair are pressed together and pressure is experienced.
>even know what matter is in it's most fundamental state. Could it not be consciousness?
I think you're stuck in a categorical confusion here. Even if some sort of consciousness is always part of any hadron or any atom that doesn't answer anything about how our conscious experience comes to be. Just because all of the protons in the chair and all of the protons in my butt have some consciousness there is no reason why there should be a feeling of "pressure".
If consciousness was physical, we would not be able to connect events into a sequence, because things have physical states for discrete infinitesimal moments of time. Consciousness must be continuous to bridge the moments.
Why?
a good book to study is CONSCIOUSNESS BEYOND LIFE by Dr Pim Van Lommel. His research is on non-local consciousness and quantum entanglement. Basically, there is a science behind non-local consciousness.
Also look at Out of Body states and you soon realise mind and brain are separate.
That made no sense. You are trying to explain time perception, not consciousness. And that is considerably better understood than being a "continuum". Its prediction expectation combined with sense data
Consciousness is never "continuous". You fall asleep each night and perceive different experiences and different perceptions. That sleep pattern interrupts conscious experience and turns it on its head.
There is no evidence for infinities, infinitesimals or continuous time, time can be quantized. The theories of time like SR and GR are classical so they work with continuous elements but that’s why they fail to work at some point and lead to singularities. So maybe what are you saying is an argument for quantised time
But actually I think something else is going on. For the brain time is as if continuous. Each experience is quantised. Then how we connect the experiences as a continuum? We don’t. Each experience can have its own identity as if a different person is born every moment, but each identity is based on the past so it assumes the same identity for the past. It is also interesting how the sensation of motion is created.
>Is consciousness a product of the physical world alone? Because if consciousness is the output of the physical brain by itself, however complex, then consciousness as physicalism would defeat those who believe, or hope for, the existence of nonphysical realities.
I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean. Physics is the study of the entirety of reality. "Nonphysical reality" is an oxymoron.
Perhaps the question is whether consciousness is atomic or composite. In either case there remains the question of how our kind of consciousness is composed.
He is not talking about consciousness in general and he is not focused on what consciousness is but how consciousness feels to us, the qualia of our consciousness. Thus, what he is talking about is the:
>>
Then he talks about it like that is all of consciousness.
Consciousness is simply an intelligent system being actively aware of something, because that actively being intelligently aware of something makes that intelligent system conscious of that something.
Now, an intelligent system is simply a system capable of learning new knowledge and skills which it can then use. Now, I think in addition to this, any living intelligent system has the ability to do this process of learning new knowledge which it remembers and makes decisions using, that it does this in a cyclic manner to evolve a body of remembered knowledge from which the intelligent system uses to make intelligent decisions from. Now, in terms of physicality, an intelligent system is simply a dynamic pattern of information which is emergent from and dependent upon the physical system which creates and controls that dynamic pattern of information. The only reason from separating the dynamic pattern of information from the physical system creating and controlling it is that different physical systems should be able to create the same dynamic pattern of information.
Viruses are intelligent.
Single celled bacteria is intelligent.
Plants are intelligent.
Nonhuman animals are intelligent.
The human mind is a swarm intelligence with a hive mind structure. Our self-aware conscious mind is NOT CONSCIOUS of our subconscious mind, but our subconscious mind is in fact a conscious intelligent system, just not one our self-aware consciousness is conscious of. Because we have found that the human mind/body is a swarm intelligence, we have also found that even individual cells have their individual intelligence and there are scientists researching this, learning how cells talk to each other, and learning how to tell cells to do things we previously thought impossible.
The point being, there are lots and lots of conscious systems which we do know a lot about... but understanding WHY the QUALIA of our self-aware consciousness feels like it does is a different kind of question.
Are there links between Consciousness and Intelligence?
Experience is one - that is what phenomenologists call Gestalt.
so..regarding th eimplication you would mean that the world outside is made out of Conscuosness??? thanks Giulio
Man is immediately conscious of the difference between matter and reality. Thats the context of knowledge. This will remain a fact regardless of what is learned about consciousness in the future. Philosophy is the context of science.
Consciousness is a natural fact of the material universe ,an activity of a very complex neural net. Its not mystical. Its not an arcade game. Its a natural fact of human nature w/its own specific properties. Ideas dont have weight and matter is not witty. There is no problem unless you are a mystic or subjectivist.
Consciousnes And Identity-Ayn Rand, in Intro To Objectivist Epistemology.
Science is rigor. Logic is rigor that always replicates. Knowledge is justified belief provided by replication either through specific measurements (science) or of those relationships that corresponds to previous replications (logic).
what is the answer then? is it physical or not?
Could consciousness be a dimension?
It is. Leftness/rightness, upness/downness, forwardness/backwardness are not superior in existential reality to blueness/greenness or bigness/smallness. Anything that can be quantified is a dimension, just not of physical spacial experience.
@@havenbastion ❤ thank you
When I play the piano, I read the notes on the page then move my finders as best I can.
Clearly there must be a physical connection between the printed notes and the sound from the piano.
The sound produced may not be an exact representation of the printed instructions.
Nevertheless, nobody could believe there is a non-physical entity somehow involved.
"Every experience is structured" is true and unambiguously irrelevant because Everything is structured; that's what a thing is, a set of boundary conditions in a mind in order to distinguish some stuff from everything else. The entire process of thinking of entirely about structuring.
These are just methodologies of describing consciousness in the most arbitrary ways, not an explanation of consciousness or the minds awareness of itself. Once we can truly understand the brain, (and we may never) theoretically we can begin to create AI. Which of course is all based around the premise of consciousness being created from matter.
If you watch the channel 'Journey to the microcosmos' you will see single eukaryotic cell life. All will feed. Some will randomly and unconsciously feed. Some will discriminately seek food, even chase food. This is a critical point. To seek, chase and capture food requires a degree of consciousness, surely. Perhaps this is where we find the emergence of consciousness. Then, since complex life such as plants and animals are a collection of single eukaryotic cells, each of which is highly complex, to a degree comparable to a city, it becomes likely that our apparant consciousness is probably the massed and developed consciousness of the sum of our cells.
Does it have to be emergent? Wouldn’t it make sense that consciousness/life/sensing/experience is fundamental, since all life is conscious? If all we know is from the perspective of consciousness and we are made of the stuff of stars, then the logical or parsimonious conclusion would be that consciousness is fundamental.
@@JaneDoe-zk4uk yes I agree. It's just the depth and complexity that develops/emerges.
What we think of as consciousness is nothing more than an advanced complexity version of the same avoid/approach mechanism in an amoeba.
@@JaneDoe-zk4uk Emergence simply means a new metaphor for a different level of understanding.
@@havenbastion There is a difference between fundamental consciousness and consciousness being an emerging property of the brain (brain being the source of consciousness). These two theories take on profoundly different ways in which to look at the world. That is why we can't just assume that consciousness is produced by the brain. There is no verification and, if it turns out not to be the nature of reality we are as in the dark as we were when we believed the world was flat.
How does consciousness create the ‘I’?
Looks like they took the discussion to Degobah
At a bigger picture,what if an observer is having an experience that is, watching us from the distant future,all of our experiences,all in 1/10th of a second,would that mean that all our different experiences are all one from his perspective?
I wonder if there's something quantum about consciousness.
Noetic sciences are slowly gaining some respect, thankfully.
Everything bigger than quantum has a quantum component. That doesn't mean every level of it is relevant.
At least the sort of consciousness I have has to have some sort of explanation that doesn't rely on quantum physics being how they are.
The composition of micro-consciousness or the emergence of consciousness has to happen at a Newtonian scale. My qualia are things like pressure caused by my butt on the chair. They relate to macro-phenomena.
There is if you ask Deepak Chopra and other new-ageist that don't understand quantum physics
Look up Henry Stapp, Hammeroff and Penrose, or just "quantum consciousness"--you'll find what you're looking for
This guy is side-stepping Roberts questions. How can these be fundamental axioms of consciousness if I damage my brain a little and some of those axioms no longer apply - yet I am still conscious
I think they apply, just to a different model your damaged brain creates for an altered experience. You may not be able to perceive shapes but see colors. You still can't divide the structure of that experience without removing essential elements of that experience. If I understood that correctly, at least.
Giulio Tononi would be the perfect Bond villain.
Why we, today, can not accept mystery ? There are parts of conscience that we will be able to understand ... other parts will not...why we can not accept our reality is either immanent or transcendent ... we we will never be able to scientifically know for sure..
Maybe consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe and its taken an evolutionary process for the human brain to ultimately tap into conscious. Similarly light which comes from the sun is fundamental to the evolutionary process of most of life on earth. But unfortunately our brains will have to evolve some more before we understand the physics of consciousness.
You've come closest to what I believe... that, just as there is matter and energy, time and space, entropy and information, so also there is a fundamental reality, that of consciousness. Consciousness is not something we have, it is what we are.
Consciousness is not a computational ability. Ability to process bites, and algorithms that implement logical solutions lead to automata that can solve problems. Solving a problem, no matter how complex, is not the same as being aware. The sense that “I am” is consciousness.
“Medically conscious” is a technical term, that implies observable responsiveness. It isn’t the same as the innate sense of “Is’ness”. The innate sense of “Is’ness”, our awareness, is broader and deeper than medical usage is limited to. The medical usage is limited to the doctors observable reality. The difference is the same as the difference between an event, and the report of the event. If you look through one window of a house and see clouds, and another, looking through another window of the same house sees sunshine, you’ll each report a different weather. Weather is bigger than the meteorologists report. And consciousness, our true nature, is larger than a doctors’ technical usage.
On the hardware of the brain, operates the software of the mind. The functioning of this computational system delivers varying degrees of volition. My Roomba vacuum cleaner, when it’s crapometer detects dirt, turns on a blue right, and goes over that dirty spot repeatedly, till it’s sensors or algorithms direct it on. The robotic vacuum is solving a problem, and displaying volition, but without being conscious of anything. When the Roomba’s battery “dies”, nothing really ceases to be conscious, because there wasn’t a consciousness to begin with.
When a river is said to have flooded a village in a fury, there isn’t a consciousness at work. It is just a pattern resulting from matter following the laws of nature. And the anthropomorphism of our metaphors.
Consciousness is what observes the activities of our mind. When your mind has perceptions, emotions, or thoughts arise in it, then you are aware of those through your consciousness. The consciousness doesn’t belong to the mind. It is what is aware of the activities of the mind. However, it is not the mind. As a principle, a sensor cannot detect itself.
Consciousness is not what the brain has. Sun shining upon a flower illumines the flower. Sunlight isn’t what the flower has. The same sunlight illumines a rotting carcass. Awareness is self revealing. You know, and that knowing is consciousness. The mechanism of the brain responds to this consciousness a certain way, because of how the brain is connected to senses, and is designed to have logic of a kind, and “intuitions” of a kind. Math is a kind of logic we have. Space and time are intuitions we have. These are not products of consciousness. These are artifacts of our brain-mind complex. We are AWARE of these perceptions and cognitions because of consciousness. A computer too has math, but no consciousness.
When in dreamless sleep, what is gone isn’t consciousness, but activities of the mind. The conscious observer has no movie running on the screen of the mind.
When the body dies, or when the mirror breaks, consciousness doesn’t go away, nor does the thing that was being reflected break with the mirror. The “doctor” might say, “we have lost the light”, but what they have lost is the reflection thereof. And, to their limited need, to say so is a verity.
You can look up Advait teachings. A man named Tadatmananda is who I find meaningful. That just happens to be my way of seeing things.
The brain is a material object, every process and detail of which can be studied and explained. A computerized system, well enough arranged, can be devised to divine the biochemistry, chemistry, neurobiological, neurology, physics, molecular biological biophysics, can be analyzed, categorized, systemized, and replicated. You don’t need a conscious computer to accomplish this. Consciousness isn’t needed to solve problems, or a computer will never beat a human at chess.
@@hershchat nicely said
@@hershchat well, a computer has beaten world champions of both chess and go!
@@DaP84 yes, that was my point exactly. Beating a human at chess is a problem solving capability. Intelligence is about solving problems. Consciousness is NOT about solving problems. Consciousness is about awareness. That’s all. Therefore, AI, computers will outcompete us in all areas but where consciousness is concerned.
@@DaP84 Thanks for your well thought comments. If you’re serious about this subject, maybe keep reading / watching videos on it. In my observation, these differences that you and I are discussing have been specifically addressed, so that we don’t have to conjecture so much. I am not saying the jury is in, but there are substantive breadcrumbs that might impact your thinking. Good luck! This is a fascinating and profound subject!
Is my computer entirely physical ?
What about the music I play on my computer ?
Surely music isn't physical !
Or is it ?
Soundwaves are physical. Music is not.
@@andsalomoni
So there are things inside my computer that are not entirely physical !
Cosmic !
@@tedgrant2 The computer produces soundwaves, an old phonograph does the same.
But the music is perceived in your consciousness.
@@andsalomoni
But I don't believe in "consciousness".
I think my brain does the job all by itself.
@@tedgrant2 You don't have to "believe".
You are conscious. It's a primary fact, there is nothing to believe.
Consciousness is the universe experiencing itself through the senses of all of its living creatures. The universe makes absolutely no sense if nothing can't witness it.
How do you know this is true? If you tell me to read Deepak Chopra's gish-galloping nonsense Imma smack you
you should spend some time with Berkeley (the philosopher)
Could not make sense. Our mind sees any experience as a composition of parts that we have experienced earlier. Also I did not find any mention of relationship between experience and consciousness.
Coz it is not a crime to talk about consciousness we should not discuss about it just like that...