Brian Greene has such phenomenal knowledge about so many things. He's a great facilitator for these as he knows how to question the guest on behalf of us, the audience. What a great and wonderful free educational resource. I feel blessed to have him as the director and guide with these different guests from different walks of science. This is free. What a wonderful opportunity. Squandered by the many called. Ironic isn't it? Science seeks and knocks for truth. Hmmmm.
I really enjoyed this! For a bonus game, each time Brian is talking, watch christof, and pause before he responds and try and guess if he liked or disliked what Brian said 😅
I don’t generally have an issue with anyone but the recent back and forth from TimMaud and Bern set and shown a very unprofessional dialogue. I would appreciate both parties come forth and apologize to the science community set aside differences and unlock reality like they both want to do.
@@techteampxla2950 I think you should apologize for Changing the subject from positive to negative because of one incident! BK has done more than 100 interviews on UA-cam. Have you ever seen anything else you think he should apologize for?
I find it fascinating that someone who is situated in a physicalist, no-actual-free-will paradigm finds "letting go" to experience "no self" terrifying. If there is no actual free will, why is it so scary? I suspect that it's actually a fear of madness and losing control that is at the root of that contradiction. Thank you both for being so open to discussing these things. 🙏💚
I'm so happy that Christof opened his eyes to the truth, even at his older age, now. And happy that he mentioned Bernardo's views - I think Bernardo's metaphysics is the closest to truth of them all. For me, it solved my biggest problem: death. If what "you" are is the universe, "focused" or dissociated into individuals, then the individual is not that important - it's just a doing of Nature. It's just an identity, an avatar, a localized perspective that Nature takes in its "dream", if you will. That's why Nature doesn't care that much about individuals but about evolution through natural selection: more fit perspectives for Nature that survive and reproduce, re-instantiating newer and newer, evolved perspectives that Nature's self takes in the dream. So when you die the real you, Nature's self, doesn't die, since what you really are is exactly that - the dissociated Self of Nature that lives "simultaneously" in what we call the "wave function of the Universe", which is the mathematical description of Nature's dream, if you will. Nature lives all the classical lives that its alters (its avatars) experience in a "simultaneous superposition". I therefore subscribe to the idea of the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics combined with Idealism: Nature is mental and lives all of its dissociations as a superpositions of classical worlds - the worlds that we experience when we make observations. I think this is the most coherent point of view based on our current understanding of physics.
I agree with everything you say with regards to seeing individuals as nature taking avatars of itself. I don't see how it's necessary to claim that nature is mental for that though. Nature does all sorts of things that don't involve any consciousness or mentality. It's only when it comes to conscious beings, this consciousness being predicated on certain conditions being met in that part of nature, that nature demonstrates or instantiates its avatar taking property. As amazing as this part of nature is, amazing especially in how it demonstrates how deeply our existence is synonymous to it, it's still not its primary fundamental property, it's only ONE property of what nature can do among countless other things. Our existence IS nature's existence deep down, but it's not ALL of its existence.
@@2CSST2 everything Nature does is mental. It appears to you as "physical", but remember that physicality is just a representation, not the real thing. But experiences are real - they really happen. Even if you experience an optical illusion, the experience itself is real - and that's the only real thing. All of Nature is mental, just like that - it's made of qualities that we then quantify and create scientific models for.
@@Raptorelnature beyond mental and tactile faculty. Without mind there can be no experience. Thus experiences are not unreal, though are not as real as mind since experience depends on mind, but, to get to the most real of all, the realest of real is consciousness.
But ones personal self awareness resides in their functional brain. All this boils down to is like saying, We have always existed in some form or another and will continue to do so. But I have zero memories before about the age of four or five. What does the Buddha say, verse one of the Dhammapada. "All that we are is the result of what we have thought, it is founded on our thought and based in out thoughts." Do you mind me asking, do you expect there to be a shared consciousness or something that we reside in for eternity or something like that? How does metaphysics salve teh problem of death? I mean, I just accept that when I die as my physical and metal self, I'm gone. All of us. That helps me to not squander the life I know I have.
1:20:17 I once trained myself to not wake up if I died in a dream. What Christof described is what I experienced - no body, no senses, just existing in a dark void - and it was a horrible experience.
Lol that "dark horrible place" is like my creativity room. I learned how to get there though meditation, then later realized I naturally the spend 1 or so in before waking in the same void, but not lucid. It seems the void is like the the canvas of ur ego. Cause I noticed I always go through it when changing egos (like dreaming ur a pirate). If I don't go through it, I'm just me n lucid when the dream starts. So it sounds like u just trained yourself not to wake up, so when the train died do you go in with it, n u where left in the middle ground the void. By the way the void just what I call the midpoint of hypnagogic state. Waking senses fall off untill you hit the void, then ur mental sensese picks up to dreaming, and back.
I'm so glad Brian asked the "death" question at the end. If asked at any other point I would have likely stop watching. Happens whenever the subject of death is brought up. If I don't do all that is necessary to change the subject I'll end up going down my rabbit hole and end up at PANIC lane with a full blown panic attack. I would give anything to have the release Christof was given through his NDE. I don't know how or if I will ever find that relief but I hope it happens before my little whirlpool fizzles out. Thanks for another great show Brian!
Good afternoon, Christof Koch & Brian Greene. Really enjoyed the conversation, specially liked Christof end comments on death n afterlife. Brian needs to be on your shoes just glance the bigger canvas of eternity. Thanks both of you. Best wishes
Best Brian Green interaction…. I really needed this, given what’s happening in politics, which is disgustingly deceptive, filled with lies, misinformation, and dishonest discussions. Now, we are going to choose our leader and the future based on the pop power of these two individuals - Beyoncé and Joe Rogan? Please save us!
Here's my take on resolving the whole epistemological issue regarding consciousness. In trying to explain the world, we come up with different explanatory descriptions of what we experience. Because the world is so complex to explain, we inevitably keep coming up with different competing descriptions that try to explain one particular phenomenon of the world we experience. When that happens, we come up with different sorts of strategies to choose the right description, it can be empirical tests, it can be taking the descriptions apart and verifying their logical coherence and explanatory validity, it can also be coming up with a new description or unfortunately sometimes just taking the one we like at face value, and refusing to accept that another description than the one we like may be the correct one. As long as we play fair in that selection process though, there are 3 types of situations that can occur when comparing 2 different competing descriptions: 1) None of them is correct 2) One of them is correct 3) Both of them are correct The 3rd situation seems impossible at first if the 2 descriptions are different, but it really isn't impossible and that's where all the magic of emergence comes from. For example, when describing a fluid, both the fluidic description AND the atomic descriptions are right, they both will predict the same thing if all required data is available for the needed accuracy of that description, and their explanations are both coherent and valid. Now here is the epistemological claim I make to make sense of all this: To the exact extent that an explanatory description is correct, the object of that description DOES exist, it is a true part of objective reality. This is why the collective behavior description of atoms in a liquid, in so far as it is correct, DOES point towards a truly existing thing, JUST as much as the fluidic description does. Both the atoms and the fluid are an existing thing. Often in such cases we tend to think of the lower level as "causing" the emergence of the higher level, but that's not a completely accurate way to see it. For example, even human crowd behavior can sometimes be correctly described with fluid dynamics, the atoms aren't necessary. There isn't any level that's directly causing the other, the reality is just that conditions may suddenly appear where 2 descriptions are correct instead of one. So, the higher level description isn't just useful, its usefulness is more importantly the reflection of the objective reality of what it points to, of something that truly exists. I think a better way to think about it is as isomorphism in mathematics, there is a one-to-one correspondance between the two and none truly has a causal precedence over the other. When the atoms come to such an arrangement that fluidity description suddenly becomes possible, the atoms themselves haven't caused fluidity, it's the evolution of the whole system that shifted into a state where fluidity becomes a valid description. Or as a mathematical analogy, you don't really "cause" double digits by adding 1 to 9 in base 10 numerology, you just moved to a location on the integer axis where double digits becomes a correct description. This situation where 2 descriptions are simultaneously correct, it is the exact situation we're facing with consciousness and our physical description of reality. It's really not qualitatively different to the issues we used to face regarding life and our physical knowledge of the universe, we're just at a point where the isomorphic matching of both descriptions of reality still isn't possible. Here's how we're eventually going to explain consciousness, we'll have to get better and better at discerning the basic elements essential to an explanatory description of consciousness, from the point of view of our subjective experience. IIT is a step in that regard, it starts from acknowledging the one inevitable fact that there IS a correct consciousness level description of reality, and it tries to get at its elemental explanatory properties: Integral, specific, self-causing, etc. Then, from the physical level description of the brain, we'll have to confirm that the conditions required for that consciousness level description are perfectly in accordance with the physics. We can take clues from both sides in trying to bridge the gap, the self-causal aspect of consciousness together with the fact that a network such as our brain allows for this complex looping activation of synapses is a great example. Based on everything I've said above, this is my answer to 2 of the issues discussed by Brian and Koch: 1) The physical description is, with theoretically perfect data access, perfectly capable of describing exactly how a conscious being will behave. This is in line with the fact that the 2 descriptions are both perfectly valid by themselves and just happen to have a one-to-one correspondance with one another. They don't need to borrow from each other. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a case of emergence, it would be a case where a single unifying description is needed. But the fact that there isn't such a single unified description is precisely why we're facing this "duality" paradox that really isn't a real paradox. Existence just has 2 valid descriptions when it comes to conscious being: One based on a physical description, another based on this self-causing subjective awareness level. 2) Regarding Koch's attempt to reconcile his sense of oneness with his physics based thinking and everyday experience, this is my take. A fact about consciousness is that this ego-based identity aspect that we normally feel, this feeling of there being us and the rest of the world, that is just an *optional* aspect of consciousness. When the ego dissolves, this very deeply undoubtable sense of oneness inevitably comes, because the description of that consciousness at that moment really is one where there is nothing but a fully merged presence, a single unified sense of existence that doesn't divide or differentiates any aspect of itself. My guess is that as we get better at physically describing what the brain's network does in such a case, we'll be able to discern the part or the mode of this looping synapse activation that's responsable for adding this identity-centric information to the self-causing loop, and that this part/mode is deactivated when people have this oneness experience. That would be a one-to-one correspondance that we're looking for, which in the epistemological framework I'm proposing would qualify as a valid explanation.
There's free will, only that it's narrow. We learn this from psychology, especially with addictive behavior. There's a saying: between stimulus and response, there's time
True enhancement of human perception and understanding comes from disciplined, structured, and integrated knowledge, rooted in fields like evolution, electromagnetism, genetics, neuroscience, and psychology. This type of intellectual development allows us to move beyond the limits of our evolved, survival-oriented perceptions and engage more deeply with the complexities of reality. On the other hand, while psychedelics can alter perception and momentarily break down cognitive boundaries, they come with significant trade-offs-namely, the disruption of intellect, coherence, and rational processing. Any perceived "insights" gained may be difficult to integrate and unreliable due to their chemically induced nature. The ultimate path to meaningful expansion of both intellect and perception appears to lie not in temporary alterations, but in the continuous pursuit of deep knowledge and self-awareness grounded in our natural capabilities. This approach respects the complexity of our evolved brains while leveraging our uniquely human ability to learn and adapt beyond simple survival needs.
It was so interesting that Christof new about the significance of 42hz (from the Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy), it made me smile. With regard to free will my inclination is toward "Deterministic Probability". A really interesting discussion :-))
About minute 40, Brian asks if consciousness makes a difference in functional (external) behaviour of the system. This is actually a very natural question regarding causal influence of consciousness. Christoph Koch honestly answers the he hasn't thought about this question. In my opinion this sounds pretty strange for an expert in cognitive science.
I love Brian Greene & have read all of his books & remember him on Joe Rogan that he mentions here .. He never said what substance he took in Amsterdam, but whatever it was really freaked him .. Apparently his wife was with him & he got back to the hotel and just hung on to his bed .. He reveals himself in this interview, & like many of my friends, it seems obvious to me , that while a brilliant physicist, he doesn't have what it takes to be a pyschonaut .. He is very earth-bound & prefers the comfort of normal consciousness & fears loss of self, loss of control .. This is why I believe he is skeptical of what Christof Koch is referring to in his psychedelic journeys .. In most ways , it is impossible to explain the psychedelic experience to someone who has never experienced it as it's vey subjective even when observing the objective & is hard to , if not impossible to show in empirical terms or data ....
I wonder what the consequences would be if we were able to fully understand and explain consciousness. How would that change how we act and how we live our lives? Would that explanation be widely accepted, or just ignored by many? I guess it would depend a lot on what the explanation actually is. If we did fully understand it, then could we create a different consciousness, one that was superior to and more intelligent than our own? If we could, should we? Should we even try for an explanation if we wouldn't like the result of that understanding? Would that explanation diminish or enhance our experience of being conscious?
_"if we could, should we?"_ I guess this is a rhetorical question you are asking here. Of course we would. Doesn't matter if we should, humans have always been curious that way; for the better or for the worse.
And thus we land at AI and Bio-Technology. WE will be the more intelligent versions of ourselves. (With a couple of cyber upgrades) Imagine doing the brain connection experiment except with a brain and a computer instead of 2 brains.
I always feel there must be something extraordinary to explain emergence, since all the constituents that make up the matter we see are independent of each other. As physics tells us, a tree is just a collection of particles unless someone observes it as a tree through their subjective experience. It's not just a matter of particles appearing as a tree; the question of how otherwise unrelated, spatially separated particles-especially within our brain-generate a collective, emergent image of a tree remains unanswered. These questions often lead me toward metaphysical philosophy. You might find it amusing, but I believe there may be physical parameters in the universe that could emerge in ways we haven't fully understood. One example is time. Consider a highly gravitational body: our proper time and the proper time near that body would differ if we did the math. But if we look at the individual components of that body, would the experience of time be the same? No, because mass plays a significant role. So, time might be emergent in a certain sense. How might this influence consciousness and its continuous nature? According to my metaphysical hypothesis, subjective experiences emerge with or like time, thus possessing a continuous property. We perceive dimensions of objects as subjective experiences, but what are the dimensions of consciousness? It has no size, just like time, yet we can perceive it. For something to be inherently emergent, there should be a minimum "working memory" or some form of memory associated with it, as it evolves with or like time. The process of "emerging" seems to correspond with memory states over time. This idea might sound silly, but I enjoy thinking about it this way. **Note:** Even within Integrated Information Theory (IIT), I couldn't find an explanation of how information is integrated when its constituents are physically separated. Every piece of information would be spatially separated unless we consider information or subjective experience as something non-physical that emerges in its own territory-or alternatively, that only physical information exists, and it always emerges. Due to subjectivity, what we see isn't reducible to true reality; instead, reality exists as emergent and can't be fully reduced. --- This version clarifies your points while maintaining the philosophical exploration of emergence, time, and consciousness.
The relationship between consciousness and the brain can be likened to that between a transmitter and a radio or TV set. We hear sounds through the radio, and we see pictures on the TV screen, but the radio or TV are not the sources of what we hear or see, the source is the transmitter. The functioning of the radio or TV affects our experience; if some of the TV’s electronics malfunction, we might see only lines or a red picture, but it would be wrong to conclude that the information to generate the picture resides in the TV. In similar way, our brain and physiology modulate our conscious experience, but they are not the source of consciousness.
How about lucid dreams? That is when you can better control (freely?) where you want the dream go next; do intentions if you will. I do them frequently, for: mental adventures, exploring my own mind, and self therapy (e.g. to face my extremely difficult feelings of shame, and overcoming my diagnosed depression in the past). My experience is that then your mind has a lot less defence mechanisms going on. It's better than hyphnosis...
Brian strikes me as an atheist who truly wishes that there was something beyond the material , unlike some one like Sean Carroll who is an atheist that actually seems to enjoy the fact that ultimately life is meaningless if it's just about physicalism.Hence, I prefer Brian, he has more heart.
Great discussion thank you. Im always intrigued when our best scientists encounter some kind of inexplicable mystical-type experience and are powerfully impacted by it. It's a far more refreshing attitude than that from some of the more hardcore rationalists who dismiss such encounters out of hand.
Fantastic Discussion. Particles appear to be relied upon by Brians world view, as if they are little hard balls of stuff (atomic) . Should Brian not pay more attention to the wave particle duality ?
when science will explain the cause of emergence of those decisions in time I will believe free will doesn't exist but till then I will go with my intuition. And intuition says I make my own long term decisions.
What Koch is failing to articulate to Greene is the concept of causal emergence and how this concept can explain the autonomy and ontological reality of integrated information states without violating some notion of supervenience upon physical instantiation at lower levels. (See the work of Eric Hoel for a thorough explanations of causal emergence and its mathematical justification.) As for free will, if your model of reality demands determinism at all but quantum levels, then yes, obviously free will would not, could not, exist. (Of course this assumes a strict demarcation between quantum and classical systems.) But it’s not clear that determinism really holds in the physical world, especially if causal emergence is true; that’s a philosophical assumption that physics often just asserts without contemplating what would be required for an indeterminate/probabilistic causal series to hold at macroscopic levels. But if causal emergence is real, and if higher levels are more causally real/efficacious than lower ones, and if the lowest level is quantum/probabilistic, then the highest level has the causal efficacy to determine the probabilistic level into determinacy. If there were no indeterminacy in nature, actual downward causation would be impossible.
9:39 yes, the mind isnt "particulate". in fact it's best characterized as a state of energy flow. just like true or false in a boolean logic circuit isnt represented by the hardware itself: it's the state of flow of energy in the circuit. luckily we have lots of formulas that discuss energy and how it works.
Just as there is a point where physics, in a certain combination of its particles, i.e., certain chemistry and the conditions around it led to the creation of life, similarly, a certain combination of particles and the environment around it provides the vessel that enables conciousness. The question is. What are the conditions required for this? Is 'life' one of them? however you define life. Anyway, one day, we will have progressed enough to classify and define that recipe that enables consciousness. Then, we may be able to decode which entities are conscious. Our human conciousness will have enabled us to recognize non human conciousness definitively.
1. Can one be aware of consciousness? 2. Can one be conscious og awareness? 3. Why would you think psychedelics are in any way related to consciousness? They may distort perceptions, but if you’re conscious won’t you be aware of the distortion?
Why should it be difficult to understand Consciousness as a field phenomenon, just as we instinctively accept lightning as an EM Field phenomenon. It can be argued that lightning and the EM Field are ontologically Perception In Consciousness (perceived, observed) and therefore are in fact phenomena of the Consciousness Field as a subset within it, just as is everything else we experience. Imagine something like a black hole, but composed of pure Consciousness -- a Consciousness Singularity. What if we're partitioned bits of this Primary Consciousness, holographically and fractally identical to the Whole and created of, by, within, and for the Whole? Doesn't that imply that without you the Whole would be incomplete? And wouldn't that necessarily confer an innate importance and value to each and every partitioned separately self aware one of us as an integral, vital part of this Consciousness Singularity? It's all Perception In Consciousness. Easy peasy. 🛸
Respected Prof. I think we should discuss on this, My theory of Universal Brain has all the answers to physical behaviour of all living beings from insects to birds and animals.
I didn't know Koch had this philosophical side, especially that he would believe in the primacy of "mind". I always thought he was just a "lets find the correlates of consciousness" guy.
If a person is not trained in a field like my field, electronic systems engineering, then why they are having these problems which seem intractable to them are obvious.
The deductive logic of an imaginal exercise can only conclude consciousness 'dwells in the quantum world' processing at light speed. A photon as a result of its light speed does not experience passage of time. It is 'outside' of time. If a photon had our ego consciousness and was asked about its emotional relationship to time the photon would give the same answer as us: "All I know is a continuous unfolding state of enending NOW.
Hi Doc & Team. Won't be easy to pull this one off but I'm a big fan of your objectivity. I was wondering if you'd be interested in having a scientist who, back in the 80's and in his mid-20's, was qualified enough to work at a particle accelerator in nevada prior to make a mistake. If I'm not wrong, he's probably never missed a particle physics publication ever since and could be working at CERN right now so, for once, it would really mean something to have his take on moderm physics, unification theories, and much more in such a subtile and educated manner you wouldn't even have to mention the mistake or its content because it's not the point. My request comes after watching the 1st interview from 1989, the the JRE podcast, then the netflix documentary and I'm surely not the only one to have identified A true genuine nerd, no matter whether he would claim to play golf naked on the moon on wednesdays (joke). Greetings. C.
Consciousness, ~~~ This is Reality as I see it; 1) All that exists is One Consciousness/Mind ('God' if you like...). Beyond this not anything else exists. 2) We are all unique momentary Perspectives (Souls) comprising the One Consciousness. 3) That which we, collectively, 'perceive/reflect' is Mind/Memory/concepts (the little bit before us at the moment). "God cannot know himself but by me!" - Meister Eckhart Free Will, ~~~ Free-will/Choice vs Determinism (and their bastard children 'compatibility and in-compatibility) is already a fallacy; a false dilemma. That they are already a fallacy, it shouldn't be shocking that there is a superior theory. The quote from Feynman at the end is the death knell of both 'free-will' and 'determinism' and their bastard children 'compatibilism and un-compatibilism! But first, a definition; "Free-will/Choice"; an egoically satisfying theory as to the meaning of a feeling/thought (ego). Get it? Whether the concept of 'free-will/choice' is anything more than an egoic delusion seems to be simply answered by 'deconstruction'. The punch line is that All is One! The Enlightened/Saved, Mystic know this experientially. Quantum physics certainly supports this. So, starting from this point, One single Universe, in perfect balance... One Truth perceived by Consciousness through infinite unique Perspectives (Souls), us. Not anything is actually moving, time is the theory to 'splain the illusion of motion, and now there are concepts of a 'self' distinct from Self with the ability to alter the entire Universe to, most often, make their own little life a bit more comfortable. After all, if you could actually 'change' anything, in the great One, you'd have to also 'change' everything! Talk about an ego trip, a God complex, no wonder people believe in 'free-will/choice'. Not to mention that everyone has the Godlike ability to alter the Universe for a Big Mac! Is this not the very definition of 'chaos'? The concept/belief does have quite the twitching support group, though. I suspect that the notion of free-will/choice is just another acquired belief virus. The symptoms of the defenders supports that theory. So, deconstructing Truth, 'free-will/choice' is impossible, other than as a notion/belief/delusion. Every moment of existence exists Now! "The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once... " - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman All 'eternity' at once; Here! Now!! and Psychedelics ~~~ Mind seen under entheogens is another Perspective of the OneMind, so? The First Law of Soul Dynamics; "For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" "The complete Universe/Mind/Reality/Truth/God... or any feature herein, can be completely defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!"
Keep watch! Unto all sitteth. Grace come here in front and remind! Lord incomplete without thy Love with patience and mercy! Why say? Lord even Thy Judgment and Justice so Love Thee!
You might leave with a feeling of knowing how consciousness arises from the mind, but that doesn't mean you actually know. If a 10 mediation retreat could solve these questions, the world's top scientists and philosophers wouldn't still be trying to figure it out after all this time.
@@AisforAtheist Hello Aisfor,since 20 years, I will not want play an ass, OK. I bring fusion, quantum computer, multivers, I fix quantum mechanic, quantum Physics, plus I modified it to make it the way it suppose to be laser pulse on and on, some call me ID, God of the Gap,jesus, God creator, and some say I dont existe,otters hate me, otters fear me, on and on,go look about me Philippe Martin 😎 the God of sciences or God of quantum stuff like this, trust Me I am real be here to help as promise last time they humiliate me and nail me, I was suppose to go china never make it, any way trust Me I am the creator but in 2024 now it's Philippe 😎 who love you and care about you Aisfor.
Dear Brian...1st of all I m grateful to introduce me with world of physics and other sciences...just one thing that keep bothering me...the exact moment i was born can I ever find that exact same place in moving universe? is it stupid or there is something into it?
Indian yogis for thousands of years have been practicing yoga has experienced an alternate reality. This alternate state cannot be easily achieved. Psychedelics are the short cut may be in which you don't have much control. By yoga you can do it in controlled way.
Hi Brian, I like your particle analogy, it can be simplified and applied also to computers, from the outside we see just particles floating around in electronics, but all computer vital components are creating "inner world" in which computer can run a program written by humans and run it, and it can yield some 3D game, difference is that we know all about computers so it's more simple to grasp, and if you give computer exact same input, there is always exact same output if the program is deterministic, and it's not affected on quantum level by some appearing particles.
Why do we continue to ponder unanswered questions in science? Why do we adapt to our society rather than follow our ancestral roots in the wilderness? Perhaps we may not find the answer from a purely reductionist, physicalist perspective. On the other hand, it could be that the peculiarities of the subjective datasets we possess intrinsically require more connections or exploration to be fully conscious to us as observers. To achieve this, the brain continuously makes connections and forms memories through feedback or further exploration, until reaching a state of dataset completion or omission. That might explain why 1 + 1 is understood as 2 (completed) or why 1/0 is indefinable and omitted in our minds. This emergent connectedness and its continuation is what we experience as consciousness-or at least, that’s my belief. Without memories of our past, or if the subjective data in our brain lacked sufficient connectivity and correlation, our level of consciousness would likely be reduced. Observations suggest that a higher connected state, with well-formed memories and relationships within the same subjective dataset, results in a heightened conscious state. From a strictly physicalist perspective, the physical states within our brain must contribute to an emergent mental state that is both stable and conscious, and the brain continues to extend this dataset as we receive new inputs over time. This is what the brain achieves through its complex components. **About Integrated Information Theory (IIT):** In consciousness, this emergent connectedness and its continuation-especially the aspect of continuation-is critical, in my view, as memory plays a key role here. Imagine if we had no memories at all; our experience of continuous consciousness would be disrupted, and we might lose any perception of time. Without the ability to perceive time, the concept of emergent connectedness would become meaningless, and we would only exist in a fleeting, present moment with zero temporal depth. If I understand correctly, IIT suggests that consciousness does not require memory, which may be true-but then what does it mean to be conscious if we cannot experience it through time? Lastly, can we consider consciousness to be fundamental, or is it an emergent property arising from the correct substrates?😮
I would argue that the fact that you reason to make decisions means that you are not free. If you are able to choose either vanilla or chocolate ice cream, then you will base your decision on your past experiences with each option, and what opinion you have formed from those experiences. And since the premises, being your memories and opinions, for the reasoning process are already semented in the past, there is no way to change that. Your decision couldn't have been otherwise, exactly because it is, and will always be, the conclusion that follows from the premises. I don't see any way to get around this withoud adding unecessary assumotions. I also think the world would be a much better place if we accepted no free will and would stop holding people morally accountable for stuff. You should only be societally accountable, meaning that if you don't play by the rules, you will be excluded until you eventually learn to play by the rules. Instead of punishing people because they "deserve it", we just exclude them to protect society, and also to motivate a change in behaviour. And we should of course also do our best to help these people rehabilitate.
I like both vanilla and chocolate ice cream. When I am in a situation where I have to choose one or the other, then I am forced to flip a virtual coin in my mind. So how does that work? I think there has to be some random undetectable input from somewhere, maybe quantum noise, that tips the scale one way or the other. I think excluding someone from society is punishment, and is necessary to maintain an orderly society. I don't see what is wrong with saying they "deserve it" when that only means they must be isolated until they consent to play by the rules that society has established.
Saying that "the deserve it" makes all the difference. It allows the other party to feel all superior and entitled to abuse the punished. That's not fair if we accept that there is no free will
@@perrygershin3946you are just assuming a quantum explanation because it feels right to you. That is incredibly close to argument from incredulity. You can google “flip a coin” and it will flip a coin with a seeming 50/50 chance. But, since a computer is a deterministic system, you could, in theory, predict which one it lands on. It is the same concept in the brain. Your brain is much more complex than it seems to the conscious mind. There are so many processes and “memories” that will affect your “coin flip”, even though it might feel random. If I had any money, I’d be willing to bet that your brain is actually following some deterministic algorithm when deciding the outcome of the mental coin flip, like a computer. But the conscious mind is not aware of all these processes, so it feels like a decision freely made by you. Even if it is quantum noise, that isn’t free will. That is just randomness. Unless you can provide a mechanism for how consciousness is able to interfere with wavefunction collapse, and offer testable predictions based on this, then invoking quantum won’t do anything for you here. The issue with saying “they deserve it” is that you are assuming a moral responsibility, which is nonsensical if there is no free will. People are not in charge of their actions, so they cannot be held morally responsible. They still are held accountable, because, as you pointed out, that is necessary for a society to function. This is what I call social responsibility. Even if you are not in control, you cannot go around harming other people. You need to be locked away from the security of the rest of society, but not because “you deserve it” and because we get a sense of justice or revenge from this. All of these emotions are there for evolutionary reasons, but they are no longer needed in a modern society, because we have science and we are able to look at things more abstractly than they were in hunter/gatherer times. In hunter/gatherer times, if someone stole from your tribe, the thief put everyone else in danger, and punishment, like an execution, gave that tribe a higher chance of survival, either because there would be no repeat offenders, but the fear of punishment also works as a deterrent. This is why punishment works, not because of some socially invented concept like justice and revenge. Today, we are smart enough to realize that killing someone for stealing isn’t right, especially since we are not in a shortage of sustenance. And we are able to detach ourselves emotionally to a greater extent and look at things logically. This has only lead to a more fair and just society. Ironically, forgetting about justice increases justice. We have seen this development already: we used to punish people who are homosexual, handicapped, mentally disabled, etc., but today, we realize that they are a product of their brain structure, not because they are evil or possessed or whatever.
The physicalist view has become quite good, but it is still not enough. Notice that in quantum mechanics we have dualisme between the wavefunction and the particle nature, so it may suit into the traditional dualistic view. God created everything by his word, so that what is visible, has come from what is not visible. And that's why nature is understandable. Heb.11,3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
People born completely deaf have nuanced differences when it comes to inner dialog. Being able to hear as a baby helps train the brain to be able to have inner conscious monologue?
I am not sure why they keep bringing up readings of voltmeter guage. We can have automated systems that get the work done for us in unattended fashion. And even if you do not see the sprinklers going in the night you do see the effect of sprinkler that you lawn stays green. And even if you travel to Timbaktu and never return you can find out the lawn is green by calling your neighbor or via remote camera. Of course the position of true idealism, where only your consciousness exists and rest of the universe is just its imagination, that is tautology and non disprovable idea. But it is true each of us have our own universe, why could someone not do whatever they want in their own private universe. That is absurd.
I don't think that consciousness is some "special" thing that we have, it's important from our point of view because we have self-preservation instincts. In reality, if you wrote complex-enough computer program with bunch of if-else conditions, learning capability, some randomness.. you can claim that is has consciousness and it's as real as yours. If that computer claimed that it is self-aware and it can experience things, it wouldn't be lying, because in order to save thing into the memory, computer needs to process it, and that alone can be considered as experiencing, because next time when computer is in similar situation, it can recall that memory and take advantage from previous experience. I don't believe that computers will be truly conscious when they say they are, it's basically a useless thing for computer to be self-aware, it's beneficial for our survival, to have some inner-self over our brain, so we can slow down, sort our thoughts based on priorities and switch between thoughts.. in computers it's automated via process manager that is jumping between processes based on priority, so we are like that process manager in computer.
Why do we continue to think about un answered questions in science?,why we adapt with our society rather than follow to our ancestral roots of wilderness? We may not get the answer from a pure reductionist physicalist, perspective. On the other hand In every sense, it could be because of the peculiarities of the subjective datasets we posses may intrinsically need more connections or explorations to be conscious to the observer that is us.Inorder to do so the brain continue to make connections and form memories from feed backs or further explorations from the observer until it reaches to dataset completion or omission. That's why may be 1 +1 is 2 as completed or 1/0 is indefinable and omitted in our minds. Anyway this emergent connectedness and it's continuation is what we experience as consciousness atleast that's what I belive. If not, if we don't have memories of our past or if our subjective data set in our brain is not connected and correlated well enough then we might not be that much conscious at all.Again even if it's too comparative to say so, a higher connected state with improved memories and connections with same subjective data set might have a higher conscious state that's what observations infer to us. So If we think from a completely physicalist perspective the physical states in our brain must contribute to a higher emergent mental state that is both stable and conscious,and shoyld continue the data set since we get newer inputs throughout our entire time ,That's what the brains do through it's components. About IIT In consciousness this emergent connectedness and it's continuation especially the continuation part is very crucial I belive since the memory part comes here,imagine if we don't have any sort of memories at all then the continuous nature of consciousness as we experience will be broken because of it we may not perceive time at all ,then what do we mean by emergent connectedness if we cannot perceive it through time at all ,here only the present moment exist with zero length of time..if I understand correctly IIT doesn't need memories to be conscious ,might be true ,but what it means to be conscious then, if we cannot experience it through time? One another thing is can we consider consciousness fundamental, or is it a an emergent property arises with correct substrates?
Brian Greene has such phenomenal knowledge about so many things. He's a great facilitator for these as he knows how to question the guest on behalf of us, the audience. What a great and wonderful free educational resource. I feel blessed to have him as the director and guide with these different guests from different walks of science. This is free. What a wonderful opportunity. Squandered by the many called. Ironic isn't it? Science seeks and knocks for truth. Hmmmm.
You've got to be kidding. He's a monologist and superficialist. Third rate.😅
100
@techteampxla2950 8½
I really enjoyed this! For a bonus game, each time Brian is talking, watch christof, and pause before he responds and try and guess if he liked or disliked what Brian said 😅
Brian why don´t you accept Koch`s suggestion and invite Bernardo Kastrup?I would love to watch that one!
yeah, that would be great! :)
Agreed.
Colored
I don’t generally have an issue with anyone but the recent back and forth from TimMaud and Bern set and shown a very unprofessional dialogue. I would appreciate both parties come forth and apologize to the science community set aside differences and unlock reality like they both want to do.
@@techteampxla2950 I think you should apologize for Changing the subject from positive to negative because of one incident!
BK has done more than 100 interviews on UA-cam.
Have you ever seen anything else you think he should apologize for?
I find it fascinating that someone who is situated in a physicalist, no-actual-free-will paradigm finds "letting go" to experience "no self" terrifying. If there is no actual free will, why is it so scary? I suspect that it's actually a fear of madness and losing control that is at the root of that contradiction. Thank you both for being so open to discussing these things. 🙏💚
Why would believing things are made of atoms have that sort of effect?
That's probably true. The illusion of free wilk may be essential for well-being.
I'm so happy that Christof opened his eyes to the truth, even at his older age, now. And happy that he mentioned Bernardo's views - I think Bernardo's metaphysics is the closest to truth of them all. For me, it solved my biggest problem: death. If what "you" are is the universe, "focused" or dissociated into individuals, then the individual is not that important - it's just a doing of Nature. It's just an identity, an avatar, a localized perspective that Nature takes in its "dream", if you will. That's why Nature doesn't care that much about individuals but about evolution through natural selection: more fit perspectives for Nature that survive and reproduce, re-instantiating newer and newer, evolved perspectives that Nature's self takes in the dream.
So when you die the real you, Nature's self, doesn't die, since what you really are is exactly that - the dissociated Self of Nature that lives "simultaneously" in what we call the "wave function of the Universe", which is the mathematical description of Nature's dream, if you will. Nature lives all the classical lives that its alters (its avatars) experience in a "simultaneous superposition". I therefore subscribe to the idea of the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics combined with Idealism: Nature is mental and lives all of its dissociations as a superpositions of classical worlds - the worlds that we experience when we make observations. I think this is the most coherent point of view based on our current understanding of physics.
I agree with everything you say with regards to seeing individuals as nature taking avatars of itself. I don't see how it's necessary to claim that nature is mental for that though. Nature does all sorts of things that don't involve any consciousness or mentality. It's only when it comes to conscious beings, this consciousness being predicated on certain conditions being met in that part of nature, that nature demonstrates or instantiates its avatar taking property. As amazing as this part of nature is, amazing especially in how it demonstrates how deeply our existence is synonymous to it, it's still not its primary fundamental property, it's only ONE property of what nature can do among countless other things. Our existence IS nature's existence deep down, but it's not ALL of its existence.
He's more spiritual now, I still don't endorse the use of psychedelics
@@2CSST2 everything Nature does is mental. It appears to you as "physical", but remember that physicality is just a representation, not the real thing. But experiences are real - they really happen. Even if you experience an optical illusion, the experience itself is real - and that's the only real thing. All of Nature is mental, just like that - it's made of qualities that we then quantify and create scientific models for.
@@Raptorelnature beyond mental and tactile faculty. Without mind there can be no experience. Thus experiences are not unreal, though are not as real as mind since experience depends on mind, but, to get to the most real of all, the realest of real is consciousness.
But ones personal self awareness resides in their functional brain. All this boils down to is like saying, We have always existed in some form or another and will continue to do so. But I have zero memories before about the age of four or five. What does the Buddha say, verse one of the Dhammapada. "All that we are is the result of what we have thought, it is founded on our thought and based in out thoughts." Do you mind me asking, do you expect there to be a shared consciousness or something that we reside in for eternity or something like that? How does metaphysics salve teh problem of death? I mean, I just accept that when I die as my physical and metal self, I'm gone. All of us. That helps me to not squander the life I know I have.
judgmentcallpodcast covers this. Consciousness, Free Will, and Psychedelics.
1:20:17 I once trained myself to not wake up if I died in a dream. What Christof described is what I experienced - no body, no senses, just existing in a dark void - and it was a horrible experience.
tapi karena tidak ada parameter waktu itu seharusnya hanya sekejap
@@coudry1 or an eternity
All that to say you were in deep sleep 😐
@@Kenji.95 All that to say that you have nothing useful to say.
Lol that "dark horrible place" is like my creativity room. I learned how to get there though meditation, then later realized I naturally the spend 1 or so in before waking in the same void, but not lucid. It seems the void is like the the canvas of ur ego. Cause I noticed I always go through it when changing egos (like dreaming ur a pirate). If I don't go through it, I'm just me n lucid when the dream starts.
So it sounds like u just trained yourself not to wake up, so when the train died do you go in with it, n u where left in the middle ground the void. By the way the void just what I call the midpoint of hypnagogic state. Waking senses fall off untill you hit the void, then ur mental sensese picks up to dreaming, and back.
I'm so glad Brian asked the "death" question at the end. If asked at any other point I would have likely stop watching. Happens whenever the subject of death is brought up. If I don't do all that is necessary to change the subject I'll end up going down my rabbit hole and end up at PANIC lane with a full blown panic attack. I would give anything to have the release Christof was given through his NDE. I don't know how or if I will ever find that relief but I hope it happens before my little whirlpool fizzles out. Thanks for another great show Brian!
Read Autobiography of a Yogi, and A Course in Miracles.
Good afternoon, Christof Koch & Brian Greene. Really enjoyed the conversation, specially liked Christof end comments on death n afterlife. Brian needs to be on your shoes just glance the bigger canvas of eternity. Thanks both of you. Best wishes
Best Brian Green interaction…. I really needed this, given what’s happening in politics, which is disgustingly deceptive, filled with lies, misinformation, and dishonest discussions. Now, we are going to choose our leader and the future based on the pop power of these two individuals - Beyoncé and Joe Rogan? Please save us!
Here's my take on resolving the whole epistemological issue regarding consciousness. In trying to explain the world, we come up with different explanatory descriptions of what we experience. Because the world is so complex to explain, we inevitably keep coming up with different competing descriptions that try to explain one particular phenomenon of the world we experience.
When that happens, we come up with different sorts of strategies to choose the right description, it can be empirical tests, it can be taking the descriptions apart and verifying their logical coherence and explanatory validity, it can also be coming up with a new description or unfortunately sometimes just taking the one we like at face value, and refusing to accept that another description than the one we like may be the correct one.
As long as we play fair in that selection process though, there are 3 types of situations that can occur when comparing 2 different competing descriptions:
1) None of them is correct
2) One of them is correct
3) Both of them are correct
The 3rd situation seems impossible at first if the 2 descriptions are different, but it really isn't impossible and that's where all the magic of emergence comes from. For example, when describing a fluid, both the fluidic description AND the atomic descriptions are right, they both will predict the same thing if all required data is available for the needed accuracy of that description, and their explanations are both coherent and valid.
Now here is the epistemological claim I make to make sense of all this: To the exact extent that an explanatory description is correct, the object of that description DOES exist, it is a true part of objective reality. This is why the collective behavior description of atoms in a liquid, in so far as it is correct, DOES point towards a truly existing thing, JUST as much as the fluidic description does. Both the atoms and the fluid are an existing thing.
Often in such cases we tend to think of the lower level as "causing" the emergence of the higher level, but that's not a completely accurate way to see it. For example, even human crowd behavior can sometimes be correctly described with fluid dynamics, the atoms aren't necessary. There isn't any level that's directly causing the other, the reality is just that conditions may suddenly appear where 2 descriptions are correct instead of one. So, the higher level description isn't just useful, its usefulness is more importantly the reflection of the objective reality of what it points to, of something that truly exists.
I think a better way to think about it is as isomorphism in mathematics, there is a one-to-one correspondance between the two and none truly has a causal precedence over the other. When the atoms come to such an arrangement that fluidity description suddenly becomes possible, the atoms themselves haven't caused fluidity, it's the evolution of the whole system that shifted into a state where fluidity becomes a valid description. Or as a mathematical analogy, you don't really "cause" double digits by adding 1 to 9 in base 10 numerology, you just moved to a location on the integer axis where double digits becomes a correct description.
This situation where 2 descriptions are simultaneously correct, it is the exact situation we're facing with consciousness and our physical description of reality. It's really not qualitatively different to the issues we used to face regarding life and our physical knowledge of the universe, we're just at a point where the isomorphic matching of both descriptions of reality still isn't possible.
Here's how we're eventually going to explain consciousness, we'll have to get better and better at discerning the basic elements essential to an explanatory description of consciousness, from the point of view of our subjective experience. IIT is a step in that regard, it starts from acknowledging the one inevitable fact that there IS a correct consciousness level description of reality, and it tries to get at its elemental explanatory properties: Integral, specific, self-causing, etc. Then, from the physical level description of the brain, we'll have to confirm that the conditions required for that consciousness level description are perfectly in accordance with the physics. We can take clues from both sides in trying to bridge the gap, the self-causal aspect of consciousness together with the fact that a network such as our brain allows for this complex looping activation of synapses is a great example.
Based on everything I've said above, this is my answer to 2 of the issues discussed by Brian and Koch:
1) The physical description is, with theoretically perfect data access, perfectly capable of describing exactly how a conscious being will behave. This is in line with the fact that the 2 descriptions are both perfectly valid by themselves and just happen to have a one-to-one correspondance with one another. They don't need to borrow from each other. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a case of emergence, it would be a case where a single unifying description is needed. But the fact that there isn't such a single unified description is precisely why we're facing this "duality" paradox that really isn't a real paradox. Existence just has 2 valid descriptions when it comes to conscious being: One based on a physical description, another based on this self-causing subjective awareness level.
2) Regarding Koch's attempt to reconcile his sense of oneness with his physics based thinking and everyday experience, this is my take. A fact about consciousness is that this ego-based identity aspect that we normally feel, this feeling of there being us and the rest of the world, that is just an *optional* aspect of consciousness. When the ego dissolves, this very deeply undoubtable sense of oneness inevitably comes, because the description of that consciousness at that moment really is one where there is nothing but a fully merged presence, a single unified sense of existence that doesn't divide or differentiates any aspect of itself. My guess is that as we get better at physically describing what the brain's network does in such a case, we'll be able to discern the part or the mode of this looping synapse activation that's responsable for adding this identity-centric information to the self-causing loop, and that this part/mode is deactivated when people have this oneness experience. That would be a one-to-one correspondance that we're looking for, which in the epistemological framework I'm proposing would qualify as a valid explanation.
nerd
There's free will, only that it's narrow. We learn this from psychology, especially with addictive behavior. There's a saying: between stimulus and response, there's time
Yes, yes, please invite Bernardo Kastrup. He would add a great value to this discussion
One third of positivity can overcome the negative balance.
Brian formulates such deep, intriguing questions. Almost an art form by itself…
Brilliant discourse fascinating
True enhancement of human perception and understanding comes from disciplined, structured, and integrated knowledge, rooted in fields like evolution, electromagnetism, genetics, neuroscience, and psychology. This type of intellectual development allows us to move beyond the limits of our evolved, survival-oriented perceptions and engage more deeply with the complexities of reality.
On the other hand, while psychedelics can alter perception and momentarily break down cognitive boundaries, they come with significant trade-offs-namely, the disruption of intellect, coherence, and rational processing. Any perceived "insights" gained may be difficult to integrate and unreliable due to their chemically induced nature.
The ultimate path to meaningful expansion of both intellect and perception appears to lie not in temporary alterations, but in the continuous pursuit of deep knowledge and self-awareness grounded in our natural capabilities. This approach respects the complexity of our evolved brains while leveraging our uniquely human ability to learn and adapt beyond simple survival needs.
It was so interesting that Christof new about the significance of 42hz (from the Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy), it made me smile.
With regard to free will my inclination is toward "Deterministic Probability". A really interesting discussion :-))
About minute 40, Brian asks if consciousness makes a difference in functional (external) behaviour of the system. This is actually a very natural question regarding causal influence of consciousness. Christoph Koch honestly answers the he hasn't thought about this question. In my opinion this sounds pretty strange for an expert in cognitive science.
I love Brian Greene & have read all of his books & remember him on Joe Rogan that he mentions here .. He never said what substance he took in Amsterdam, but whatever it was really freaked him .. Apparently his wife was with him & he got back to the hotel and just hung on to his bed .. He reveals himself in this interview, & like many of my friends, it seems obvious to me , that while a brilliant physicist, he doesn't have what it takes to be a pyschonaut .. He is very earth-bound & prefers the comfort of normal consciousness & fears loss of self, loss of control .. This is why I believe he is skeptical of what Christof Koch is referring to in his psychedelic journeys .. In most ways , it is impossible to explain the psychedelic experience to someone who has never experienced it as it's vey subjective even when observing the objective & is hard to , if not impossible to show in empirical terms or data ....
I wonder what the consequences would be if we were able to fully understand and explain consciousness.
How would that change how we act and how we live our lives? Would that explanation be widely accepted, or just ignored by many? I guess it would depend a lot on what the explanation actually is.
If we did fully understand it, then could we create a different consciousness, one that was superior to and more intelligent than our own? If we could, should we?
Should we even try for an explanation if we wouldn't like the result of that understanding?
Would that explanation diminish or enhance our experience of being conscious?
_"if we could, should we?"_
I guess this is a rhetorical question you are asking here. Of course we would. Doesn't matter if we should, humans have always been curious that way; for the better or for the worse.
And thus we land at AI and Bio-Technology. WE will be the more intelligent versions of ourselves. (With a couple of cyber upgrades)
Imagine doing the brain connection experiment except with a brain and a computer instead of 2 brains.
99 will say, pop Christof HE is HOME!
I always feel there must be something extraordinary to explain emergence, since all the constituents that make up the matter we see are independent of each other. As physics tells us, a tree is just a collection of particles unless someone observes it as a tree through their subjective experience. It's not just a matter of particles appearing as a tree; the question of how otherwise unrelated, spatially separated particles-especially within our brain-generate a collective, emergent image of a tree remains unanswered.
These questions often lead me toward metaphysical philosophy. You might find it amusing, but I believe there may be physical parameters in the universe that could emerge in ways we haven't fully understood. One example is time. Consider a highly gravitational body: our proper time and the proper time near that body would differ if we did the math. But if we look at the individual components of that body, would the experience of time be the same? No, because mass plays a significant role.
So, time might be emergent in a certain sense. How might this influence consciousness and its continuous nature? According to my metaphysical hypothesis, subjective experiences emerge with or like time, thus possessing a continuous property. We perceive dimensions of objects as subjective experiences, but what are the dimensions of consciousness? It has no size, just like time, yet we can perceive it. For something to be inherently emergent, there should be a minimum "working memory" or some form of memory associated with it, as it evolves with or like time. The process of "emerging" seems to correspond with memory states over time.
This idea might sound silly, but I enjoy thinking about it this way.
**Note:** Even within Integrated Information Theory (IIT), I couldn't find an explanation of how information is integrated when its constituents are physically separated. Every piece of information would be spatially separated unless we consider information or subjective experience as something non-physical that emerges in its own territory-or alternatively, that only physical information exists, and it always emerges. Due to subjectivity, what we see isn't reducible to true reality; instead, reality exists as emergent and can't be fully reduced.
---
This version clarifies your points while maintaining the philosophical exploration of emergence, time, and consciousness.
Great talk!
What what a great conversation. Thanks guys.
Thank you both.
Thank you both for this fascinating conversation. 🙏
Love you pop!
This was an incredible conversation
The relationship between consciousness and the brain can be likened to that between a transmitter and a radio or TV set. We hear sounds through the radio, and we see pictures on the TV screen, but the radio or TV are not the sources of what we hear or see, the source is the transmitter. The functioning of the radio or TV affects our experience; if some of the TV’s electronics malfunction, we might see only lines or a red picture, but it would be wrong to conclude that the information to generate the picture resides in the TV. In similar way, our brain and physiology modulate our conscious experience, but they are not the source of consciousness.
Sings: “It ain’t necessarily so...” 🎤
How about lucid dreams? That is when you can better control (freely?) where you want the dream go next; do intentions if you will. I do them frequently, for: mental adventures, exploring my own mind, and self therapy (e.g. to face my extremely difficult feelings of shame, and overcoming my diagnosed depression in the past). My experience is that then your mind has a lot less defence mechanisms going on. It's better than hyphnosis...
Brian strikes me as an atheist who truly wishes that there was something beyond the material , unlike some one like Sean Carroll who is an atheist that actually seems to enjoy the fact that ultimately life is meaningless if it's just about physicalism.Hence, I prefer Brian, he has more heart.
Facts but its called agnostic just to be clear
Christof Koch looks like a doppelganger of Robert Sean Leonard from Dr House lol....Incredible conversation
❤ Kastrup
Wow, thank you! This is absolutely amazingly interesting & I have been thinking about this for quite some time. 👏
Let there be LIGHT!
Great discussion thank you. Im always intrigued when our best scientists encounter some kind of inexplicable mystical-type experience and are powerfully impacted by it. It's a far more refreshing attitude than that from some of the more hardcore rationalists who dismiss such encounters out of hand.
Fantastic Discussion. Particles appear to be relied upon by Brians world view, as if they are little hard balls of stuff (atomic) . Should Brian not pay more attention to the wave particle duality ?
when science will explain the cause of emergence of those decisions in time I will believe free will doesn't exist but till then I will go with my intuition. And intuition says I make my own long term decisions.
What Koch is failing to articulate to Greene is the concept of causal emergence and how this concept can explain the autonomy and ontological reality of integrated information states without violating some notion of supervenience upon physical instantiation at lower levels. (See the work of Eric Hoel for a thorough explanations of causal emergence and its mathematical justification.) As for free will, if your model of reality demands determinism at all but quantum levels, then yes, obviously free will would not, could not, exist. (Of course this assumes a strict demarcation between quantum and classical systems.) But it’s not clear that determinism really holds in the physical world, especially if causal emergence is true; that’s a philosophical assumption that physics often just asserts without contemplating what would be required for an indeterminate/probabilistic causal series to hold at macroscopic levels. But if causal emergence is real, and if higher levels are more causally real/efficacious than lower ones, and if the lowest level is quantum/probabilistic, then the highest level has the causal efficacy to determine the probabilistic level into determinacy. If there were no indeterminacy in nature, actual downward causation would be impossible.
Thank you!🌈🎵
Never lose the Inner Chield, innocence is more powerfull than psycadelics!
9:39 yes, the mind isnt "particulate". in fact it's best characterized as a state of energy flow. just like true or false in a boolean logic circuit isnt represented by the hardware itself: it's the state of flow of energy in the circuit. luckily we have lots of formulas that discuss energy and how it works.
For darkness without form and void is upon the deep!
Resting upon GRACE!
Kristoff, I recommend Andrew Gallimore's book - Reality Switch Technologies: Psychedelics as Tools for the Discovery New Worlds
None of it matters; in a hundred years we will all be somewhere else.
Creation itself will praise in front of HIM!
Just as there is a point where physics, in a certain combination of its particles, i.e., certain chemistry and the conditions around it led to the creation of life, similarly, a certain combination of particles and the environment around it provides the vessel that enables conciousness. The question is. What are the conditions required for this? Is 'life' one of them? however you define life. Anyway, one day, we will have progressed enough to classify and define that recipe that enables consciousness. Then, we may be able to decode which entities are conscious. Our human conciousness will have enabled us to recognize non human conciousness definitively.
Indeed smiles from Who knows belongs upon all dry grounds.
Wonderful!
From Here! Shared "i" Am come forth!
Remember becareful for many will imitate!
❤❤❤
Free will is the psychedelic itself. Hallucination is the learning process in the preprogrammed algorithm.
@@-tarificpromo-7196 Meaningless dross.
Christof is cool :)
FREE WILL to walk on waters, hovering upon all the face of the waters!
Dosie doe Here we Go!
1. Can one be aware of consciousness?
2. Can one be conscious og awareness?
3. Why would you think psychedelics are in any way related to consciousness? They may distort perceptions, but if you’re conscious won’t you be aware of the distortion?
Fowl of the Air come here in front and remind! Indeed
Why should it be difficult to understand Consciousness as a field phenomenon, just as we instinctively accept lightning as an EM Field phenomenon.
It can be argued that lightning and the EM Field are ontologically Perception In Consciousness (perceived, observed) and therefore are in fact phenomena of the Consciousness Field as a subset within it, just as is everything else we experience.
Imagine something like a black hole, but composed of pure Consciousness -- a Consciousness Singularity. What if we're partitioned bits of this Primary Consciousness, holographically and fractally identical to the Whole and created of, by, within, and for the Whole? Doesn't that imply that without you the Whole would be incomplete? And wouldn't that necessarily confer an innate importance and value to each and every partitioned separately self aware one of us as an integral, vital part of this Consciousness Singularity?
It's all Perception In Consciousness.
Easy peasy. 🛸
Respected Prof. I think we should discuss on this, My theory of Universal Brain has all the answers to physical behaviour of all living beings from insects to birds and animals.
Podcast with Robert Sapolsky please
Yes, and Stephen Fry would be an excellent addition.
Came here to say this! That would be an incredible conversation.
❤
I didn't know Koch had this philosophical side, especially that he would believe in the primacy of "mind". I always thought he was just a "lets find the correlates of consciousness" guy.
I want free will to exist. Thats why it exists
Sir Michael Jagger may disagree with that proposition.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas Does heh have solution to 3 body problem?
@@SuperAmazingAnt, kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
If a person is not trained in a field like my field, electronic systems engineering, then why they are having these problems which seem intractable to them are obvious.
The deductive logic of an imaginal exercise can only conclude consciousness 'dwells in the quantum world' processing at light speed. A photon as a result of its light speed does not experience passage of time. It is 'outside' of time. If a photon had our ego consciousness and was asked about its emotional relationship to time the photon would give the same answer as us: "All I know is a continuous unfolding state of enending NOW.
Crazy af. Free will is based upon your understanding of all aspects and where and what you choose.
this is the kind of person who gains the most from expanded consciousness. brian too if he would just trust
Do you really think Brain hasn't??
Cmon
Hi Doc & Team. Won't be easy to pull this one off but I'm a big fan of your objectivity.
I was wondering if you'd be interested in having a scientist who, back in the 80's and in his mid-20's, was qualified enough to work at a particle accelerator in nevada prior to make a mistake.
If I'm not wrong, he's probably never missed a particle physics publication ever since and could be working at CERN right now so, for once, it would really mean something to have his take on moderm physics, unification theories, and much more in such a subtile and educated manner you wouldn't even have to mention the mistake or its content because it's not the point.
My request comes after watching the 1st interview from 1989, the the JRE podcast, then the netflix documentary and I'm surely not the only one to have identified A true genuine nerd, no matter whether he would claim to play golf naked on the moon on wednesdays (joke). Greetings. C.
Consciousness,
~~~ This is Reality as I see it;
1) All that exists is One Consciousness/Mind ('God' if you like...).
Beyond this not anything else exists.
2) We are all unique momentary Perspectives (Souls) comprising the One Consciousness.
3) That which we, collectively, 'perceive/reflect' is Mind/Memory/concepts (the little bit before us at the moment).
"God cannot know himself but by me!" - Meister Eckhart
Free Will,
~~~ Free-will/Choice vs Determinism (and their bastard children 'compatibility and in-compatibility) is already a fallacy; a false dilemma.
That they are already a fallacy, it shouldn't be shocking that there is a superior theory.
The quote from Feynman at the end is the death knell of both 'free-will' and 'determinism' and their bastard children 'compatibilism and un-compatibilism!
But first, a definition;
"Free-will/Choice"; an egoically satisfying theory as to the meaning of a feeling/thought (ego). Get it?
Whether the concept of 'free-will/choice' is anything more than an egoic delusion seems to be simply answered by 'deconstruction'.
The punch line is that All is One! The Enlightened/Saved, Mystic know this experientially. Quantum physics certainly supports this.
So, starting from this point, One single Universe, in perfect balance...
One Truth perceived by Consciousness through infinite unique Perspectives (Souls), us.
Not anything is actually moving, time is the theory to 'splain the illusion of motion, and now there are concepts of a 'self' distinct from Self with the ability to alter the entire Universe to, most often, make their own little life a bit more comfortable. After all, if you could actually 'change' anything, in the great One, you'd have to also 'change' everything! Talk about an ego trip, a God complex, no wonder people believe in 'free-will/choice'.
Not to mention that everyone has the Godlike ability to alter the Universe for a Big Mac!
Is this not the very definition of 'chaos'?
The concept/belief does have quite the twitching support group, though. I suspect that the notion of free-will/choice is just another acquired belief virus. The symptoms of the defenders supports that theory.
So, deconstructing Truth, 'free-will/choice' is impossible, other than as a notion/belief/delusion.
Every moment of existence exists Now!
"The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once... " - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman
All 'eternity' at once; Here! Now!!
and Psychedelics
~~~ Mind seen under entheogens is another Perspective of the OneMind, so?
The First Law of Soul Dynamics;
"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!"
"The complete Universe/Mind/Reality/Truth/God... or any feature herein, can be completely defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!"
Keep watch! Unto all sitteth. Grace come here in front and remind! Lord incomplete without thy Love with patience and mercy! Why say? Lord even Thy Judgment and Justice so Love Thee!
Brain is mortal, consciousness (using brain as a tool 🙂) is eternal 🙂 It resides in the higher dimensions postulated by the string theory 🙂
Prof. I advise you go to do 10 days Vipassana Meditation train. You will fully understand how consciousness merge the body
Thank you Kate,but I truly dising it 😎 Philippe love and care about you
Or an Ayahuasca retreat
You might leave with a feeling of knowing how consciousness arises from the mind, but that doesn't mean you actually know.
If a 10 mediation retreat could solve these questions, the world's top scientists and philosophers wouldn't still be trying to figure it out after all this time.
@@AisforAtheist Hello Aisfor,since 20 years, I will not want play an ass, OK. I bring fusion, quantum computer, multivers, I fix quantum mechanic, quantum Physics, plus I modified it to make it the way it suppose to be laser pulse on and on, some call me ID, God of the Gap,jesus, God creator, and some say I dont existe,otters hate me, otters fear me, on and on,go look about me Philippe Martin 😎 the God of sciences or God of quantum stuff like this, trust Me I am real be here to help as promise last time they humiliate me and nail me, I was suppose to go china never make it, any way trust Me I am the creator but in 2024 now it's Philippe 😎 who love you and care about you Aisfor.
Students shared "i" Am will say, LORD many came in front of thee! Ye fed!
Truth the major factor
Dear Brian...1st of all I m grateful to introduce me with world of physics and other sciences...just one thing that keep bothering me...the exact moment i was born can I ever find that exact same place in moving universe? is it stupid or there is something into it?
Maybe brain disintegration is when negative synapses overcome positive ones.
Indian yogis for thousands of years have been practicing yoga has experienced an alternate reality. This alternate state cannot be easily achieved. Psychedelics are the short cut may be in which you don't have much control. By yoga you can do it in controlled way.
From scratching their Heads to smiling in front of Thee!
Fowl of the Air will say, LORD thy documents sent forth!
Hi Brian, I like your particle analogy, it can be simplified and applied also to computers, from the outside we see just particles floating around in electronics, but all computer vital components are creating "inner world" in which computer can run a program written by humans and run it, and it can yield some 3D game, difference is that we know all about computers so it's more simple to grasp, and if you give computer exact same input, there is always exact same output if the program is deterministic, and it's not affected on quantum level by some appearing particles.
Why do we continue to ponder unanswered questions in science? Why do we adapt to our society rather than follow our ancestral roots in the wilderness? Perhaps we may not find the answer from a purely reductionist, physicalist perspective.
On the other hand, it could be that the peculiarities of the subjective datasets we possess intrinsically require more connections or exploration to be fully conscious to us as observers. To achieve this, the brain continuously makes connections and forms memories through feedback or further exploration, until reaching a state of dataset completion or omission. That might explain why 1 + 1 is understood as 2 (completed) or why 1/0 is indefinable and omitted in our minds.
This emergent connectedness and its continuation is what we experience as consciousness-or at least, that’s my belief. Without memories of our past, or if the subjective data in our brain lacked sufficient connectivity and correlation, our level of consciousness would likely be reduced. Observations suggest that a higher connected state, with well-formed memories and relationships within the same subjective dataset, results in a heightened conscious state.
From a strictly physicalist perspective, the physical states within our brain must contribute to an emergent mental state that is both stable and conscious, and the brain continues to extend this dataset as we receive new inputs over time. This is what the brain achieves through its complex components.
**About Integrated Information Theory (IIT):**
In consciousness, this emergent connectedness and its continuation-especially the aspect of continuation-is critical, in my view, as memory plays a key role here. Imagine if we had no memories at all; our experience of continuous consciousness would be disrupted, and we might lose any perception of time. Without the ability to perceive time, the concept of emergent connectedness would become meaningless, and we would only exist in a fleeting, present moment with zero temporal depth.
If I understand correctly, IIT suggests that consciousness does not require memory, which may be true-but then what does it mean to be conscious if we cannot experience it through time?
Lastly, can we consider consciousness to be fundamental, or is it an emergent property arising from the correct substrates?😮
Brian, Brain, Brian, Brain, anyone?!
Why good things in life, are always so short!?!
I would argue that the fact that you reason to make decisions means that you are not free. If you are able to choose either vanilla or chocolate ice cream, then you will base your decision on your past experiences with each option, and what opinion you have formed from those experiences. And since the premises, being your memories and opinions, for the reasoning process are already semented in the past, there is no way to change that. Your decision couldn't have been otherwise, exactly because it is, and will always be, the conclusion that follows from the premises.
I don't see any way to get around this withoud adding unecessary assumotions. I also think the world would be a much better place if we accepted no free will and would stop holding people morally accountable for stuff. You should only be societally accountable, meaning that if you don't play by the rules, you will be excluded until you eventually learn to play by the rules. Instead of punishing people because they "deserve it", we just exclude them to protect society, and also to motivate a change in behaviour. And we should of course also do our best to help these people rehabilitate.
Stop holding people accountable is the dumbest thing I've read in months. It's an excuse for degenerates to be degenerates. It's satanic.
I like both vanilla and chocolate ice cream. When I am in a situation where I have to choose one or the other, then I am forced to flip a virtual coin in my mind. So how does that work? I think there has to be some random undetectable input from somewhere, maybe quantum noise, that tips the scale one way or the other.
I think excluding someone from society is punishment, and is necessary to maintain an orderly society. I don't see what is wrong with saying they "deserve it" when that only means they must be
isolated until they consent to play by the rules that society has established.
Saying that "the deserve it" makes all the difference. It allows the other party to feel all superior and entitled to abuse the punished. That's not fair if we accept that there is no free will
@@perrygershin3946you are just assuming a quantum explanation because it feels right to you. That is incredibly close to argument from incredulity. You can google “flip a coin” and it will flip a coin with a seeming 50/50 chance. But, since a computer is a deterministic system, you could, in theory, predict which one it lands on. It is the same concept in the brain. Your brain is much more complex than it seems to the conscious mind. There are so many processes and “memories” that will affect your “coin flip”, even though it might feel random. If I had any money, I’d be willing to bet that your brain is actually following some deterministic algorithm when deciding the outcome of the mental coin flip, like a computer. But the conscious mind is not aware of all these processes, so it feels like a decision freely made by you.
Even if it is quantum noise, that isn’t free will. That is just randomness. Unless you can provide a mechanism for how consciousness is able to interfere with wavefunction collapse, and offer testable predictions based on this, then invoking quantum won’t do anything for you here.
The issue with saying “they deserve it” is that you are assuming a moral responsibility, which is nonsensical if there is no free will. People are not in charge of their actions, so they cannot be held morally responsible. They still are held accountable, because, as you pointed out, that is necessary for a society to function. This is what I call social responsibility. Even if you are not in control, you cannot go around harming other people. You need to be locked away from the security of the rest of society, but not because “you deserve it” and because we get a sense of justice or revenge from this. All of these emotions are there for evolutionary reasons, but they are no longer needed in a modern society, because we have science and we are able to look at things more abstractly than they were in hunter/gatherer times. In hunter/gatherer times, if someone stole from your tribe, the thief put everyone else in danger, and punishment, like an execution, gave that tribe a higher chance of survival, either because there would be no repeat offenders, but the fear of punishment also works as a deterrent. This is why punishment works, not because of some socially invented concept like justice and revenge. Today, we are smart enough to realize that killing someone for stealing isn’t right, especially since we are not in a shortage of sustenance. And we are able to detach ourselves emotionally to a greater extent and look at things logically. This has only lead to a more fair and just society. Ironically, forgetting about justice increases justice. We have seen this development already: we used to punish people who are homosexual, handicapped, mentally disabled, etc., but today, we realize that they are a product of their brain structure, not because they are evil or possessed or whatever.
I Really Want Scientists To Engage With Pop Stars! That is How Science Will Be Understood By Ordinary People!
The physicalist view has become quite good, but it is still not enough. Notice that in quantum mechanics we have dualisme between the wavefunction and the particle nature, so it may suit into the traditional dualistic view. God created everything by his word, so that what is visible, has come from what is not visible. And that's why nature is understandable. Heb.11,3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
People born completely deaf have nuanced differences when it comes to inner dialog. Being able to hear as a baby helps train the brain to be able to have inner conscious monologue?
I am not sure why they keep bringing up readings of voltmeter guage. We can have automated systems that get the work done for us in unattended fashion. And even if you do not see the sprinklers going in the night you do see the effect of sprinkler that you lawn stays green. And even if you travel to Timbaktu and never return you can find out the lawn is green by calling your neighbor or via remote camera. Of course the position of true idealism, where only your consciousness exists and rest of the universe is just its imagination, that is tautology and non disprovable idea. But it is true each of us have our own universe, why could someone not do whatever they want in their own private universe. That is absurd.
"Consciousness, Free Will, and Psychedelics"...yep. That was the order I experienced them in.
Tell me more about your supposed *FREE-WILL*
@@ReverendDr.Thomas It was just an illusion that happened when I first learned the word "No".
Students shared "i" Am will say, unto all authors able to fill in the blank! Noone can pluck thee away from HIS HANDS.
Given ABLE!
I don't think that consciousness is some "special" thing that we have, it's important from our point of view because we have self-preservation instincts. In reality, if you wrote complex-enough computer program with bunch of if-else conditions, learning capability, some randomness.. you can claim that is has consciousness and it's as real as yours. If that computer claimed that it is self-aware and it can experience things, it wouldn't be lying, because in order to save thing into the memory, computer needs to process it, and that alone can be considered as experiencing, because next time when computer is in similar situation, it can recall that memory and take advantage from previous experience.
I don't believe that computers will be truly conscious when they say they are, it's basically a useless thing for computer to be self-aware, it's beneficial for our survival, to have some inner-self over our brain, so we can slow down, sort our thoughts based on priorities and switch between thoughts.. in computers it's automated via process manager that is jumping between processes based on priority, so we are like that process manager in computer.
What is less? But increased!
Remember documents sent forth before writing a book in front of HIM!
my free will doesn't exist everytime i freely choose to💡
Students shared "i" Am given so ABLE in front!
Why do we continue to think about un answered questions in science?,why we adapt with our society rather than follow to our ancestral roots of wilderness? We may not get the answer from a pure reductionist physicalist, perspective.
On the other hand In every sense, it could be because of the peculiarities of the subjective datasets we posses may intrinsically need more connections or explorations to be conscious to the observer that is us.Inorder to do so the brain continue to make connections and form memories from feed backs or further explorations from the observer until it reaches to dataset completion or omission. That's why may be 1 +1 is 2 as completed or 1/0 is indefinable and omitted in our minds.
Anyway this emergent connectedness and it's continuation is what we experience as consciousness atleast that's what I belive. If not, if we don't have memories of our past or if our subjective data set in our brain is not connected and correlated well enough then we might not be that much conscious at all.Again even if it's too comparative to say so, a higher connected state with improved memories and connections with same subjective data set might have a higher conscious state that's what observations infer to us.
So If we think from a completely physicalist perspective the physical states in our brain must contribute to a higher emergent mental state that is both stable and conscious,and shoyld continue the data set since we get newer inputs throughout our entire time ,That's what the brains do through it's components.
About IIT
In consciousness this emergent connectedness and it's continuation especially the continuation part is very crucial I belive since the memory part comes here,imagine if we don't have any sort of memories at all then the continuous nature of consciousness as we experience will be broken because of it we may not perceive time at all ,then what do we mean by emergent connectedness if we cannot perceive it through time at all ,here only the present moment exist with zero length of time..if I understand correctly IIT doesn't need memories to be conscious ,might be true ,but what it means to be conscious then, if we cannot experience it through time?
One another thing is can we consider consciousness fundamental, or is it a an emergent property arises with correct substrates?