How Close is Science to Understanding Consciousness?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 сер 2024
- www.scienceandn...
Fascinating conversation with Stuart Hameroff, Julia Mossbridge, Henry Stapp and Chris Fields, Donald Hoffman facilitated by A.H. Almaas
Four different scientists with varying views of consciousness or mind. This panel will be a conversation between these different views to understand their contributions, and to see how they understand each other, and how they relate to other theories of consciousness. The point is to have a genuine deep dialogue between scientific theories of consciousness to find commonalities, and the meaning of the differences. We will explore whether scientific theories have a consensus about anything relating to consciousness, like an operating definition of consciousness. I will be facilitating with an eye from the nondual view of consciousness, to ask questions and address issues in the study of consciousness that can help in looking deeper into the assumptions and conclusions of each theory.
1. Consciousness is holding the same place in the universe what it holds in my dream.
2. In my dream, space, time, matter and mind were imagined by consciousness which was independent of them.
3. In the universe, space, time, matter and mind are imagined by consciousness, which is independent of them.
4. Consciousness is singular and fundamental.
Not very..there saved you 144 minutes. Your welcome 😊
The important part of a discussion isn’t the conclusion.
Scientist will never understand this
I believe consciousness will always remain a mystery, a mystery means it will never be known, you can only live the mystery period.
**You're
There; fixed it. YOU'RE welcome! 😊
So H. Stapp and Hameroff have the same view and understanding, the only difference there is that Hameroff has discovered that the collapse occurs before the physical mind is able to interpret it as an observation. And this is consistent with quantum eraser experiment where it is obvious that the collapse occurs before the space-time manifestation. So there are two observers the Higher and the lower Selves which are the same entity, the first gives life and experience to the latter through the brain which acts like a projector or an orchestra if you will that makes linear experience possible. So in a sense we are both the projector and the projection, the creator and the creation. The father and the son are one entity.
Has if we have a field, frequency,radar type wave of quantum entangling electromagnetic energy that latches and collapses particles of absolute potentiality to be observed and register ed in our eyes,brain a moment later and then sausages!?
iwbtssothy YES. There is so much wheel spinning on the topic because there are so many viewpoints because people are able to project their own limited worldview onto what is happening. Then they don’t realize that they have a limited view by definition and begin the same old pattern of conflict we see in the history of life lost in a wilderness of divisiveness. So to me this is just a show complete with referee exactly like professional wrestling. Maybe this is why enlightened people of the past just dropped out of society. I tried to tell people this and used all the diversity of life as one to answer this question but they wouldn’t listen because there is a cacophony of division going on and if they would stop and listen they would see that I am supporting their own ideas and not wrestling although that stuff is very entertaining.
@@GriuGriu64 no they don't. They are cells. For god's sake, think about the things you are going to say, for even just a minute.
Dont forget the holy spirit
What amazes me given all the differing ideas, was that no one got up and walked out!!! My money is on Stuart Hameroff and Rodger Penrose. Also their theories confirm some of my life experiences sense the age of five. thank you so much!
Stuart Hameroff: 15:30, 36:17, 1:13:00, 1:41:10
Donald Hoffman: 27:01, 1:17:15 (good one), 1:39:50, 1:48:40
Chris Fields: 34:39 (interesting remark), 54:00
Consciousness has the potential of manifesting the universe like a dream.
the universe is a dream of consciousness
A dream of GOD
J F 👍
*Inner-Luminosity* 👍
Refreshing to hear people actually talking about reality. Not some mystic determinism that nobody can even understand/perceive of what it means.
Michelangelo
Absolutely. . .
The problem is cultural, your culture gives you your imagination,beliefs etc. Caucasian cultural edict says mind comes from matter, meaning we are our body's not that our body's house us.. But for thousands of years Africans have taught the ancient world about the anti-wave that underlays all visible wave systems. But ofcourse thats blasphemy, how dare I suggeste that anynation was ever more advanced the the nuckle draggers right
"How Close is Science to Understanding Consciousness?"
To answer the question after listening to half of this.
Not close at all.
Because it cannot be understandable. No question can be answered from the level of consciousness that created it.
Yes there is no answer that I can type or say.
I know . . .this is really dreary gibberish . . .do they all have books to sell?
@@garypuckettmuse I agree except with Hammeroff and Pennrose. They're theory and his work with microtubules is groundbreaking
Rick Negus consciousness is an electromagnetic field that radiates nonlocally throughout the universe. It IS what observed the universe at the Big Bang. So the entire universe is a quantum mechanical system measured by the brain. In its interaction, matter arises as merely an alignment to particles (string theory). The space around you is a hologram created by your mind and to the framework, the mind of those around you. More than 1 hologram exists, and it’ll appear simultaneously with yours if you changed your energy drastically. It’s that simple. Al the world is a stage.
“I looked for myself and only found god. I looked for god and only found myself” namaste
Chris Fields makes a very important point at 57:20. He's right to say that the sooner we adopt this idea on a much wider scale, the better.
As matter itself. It's nothing that exist but is just a concept created by mind/consciousness to explain apparent phenomena. The real problem is, and that's why the idea of matter or objects seems to survive all contradictory findings is, that it is so contraintuitive. It would mean that we would need to disbelieve everting that we see our otherwise experience, including the sense of being a self that is having agency over it's actions.
I don't think that the human race is anywhere close to accepting the implications of modern physics. And with not close I mean a couple of thousands years of ongoing evolution, if we haven't destroyed ourself before or have been taken over by the machines. 😘
No question can be answered from the level of consciousness that created it.
cool (:
Is 2+2=4 ?
One person sticking out here, and thats Donald Hoffman!
Stuart Hameroff's theory makes the most sense IMO.
Its wrong based on our current science. We know conscious states are the result of interconnectivity between different brain modules. We also know that our current scientific paradigm points to the need of complex structures for the emergence of advanced properties in nature. Simple particles ONLY display kinetic properties. Assuming mental properties to a particles is a supernatural this a pseudo scientific claim
@btw Buddhism is True You are making a huge Category Mistake (Logical Fallacy). We are the emergent result of Particles enabling atoms, enabling molecules, enabling chemistry, enabling biology. "We are particles" is a nonsensical and factually false claim.
To be honest everything you wrote makes no sense. There is Objective reality and our mental properties trying to grasp it. You used a device hooked on the internet to write these nonsensical things because Objective Reality imposes on you External Limitations with Empirical Regularities.
You need to obey to your Physical Impressions if you want to accomplish anything in reality but you can ignore the "stimuli" experienced in your Mental impressions as not real(falling from a cliff). This is because Mental Impressions don't display external Limitations or Empirical Regularities like physical Impressions do.
You need to use Logic if you want to understand reality and how it relates to your mental abilities mate.
@btw Buddhism is True
-"We are particles is a false claim? Wow. You're lost."
-LOL How can you ever say that, when we are entities product of processes.???? Maybe your definition of ''particle" has nothing in common with all know common usages of the word!
-"If we're Mind emergent from lower order mind, that's still Panpsychism. "
-if? IF? .....try objectively verifying that if mate...only then you would have a case.
-"You just don't call it that". NO I don't call it that because I respect the common usages of words.
-"Water is still water, you just want to call the higher order water "ocean" and not allot it to the lower order molecules. Ad hoc."
-What are you talking about? Why are you trying to make arguments from Ambiguity (fallacy)? You are confusing the term "water",which we use to label the substance, with the term "ocean" which is used to describe the physical body with Specific Characteristics! How old are you mate?
-"Everything is a mental impression imposed on another mental impression. "
-How can you objectively verify such a ontological claim?
-"There's no "physical" impression. "
-Imagine running through a brick wall....and then actually do it. The differences in those two experiences will help you distinguish those two types of impressions.
IF you still are unable to do that, then we have special institutions that help people distinguish reality from fantasy!.
-"Define what physical means, then we can talk about "physical" impressions."
-I just did in my previous post. Physical Impressions are those which display Empirical Regularities and External Limitations. i.e. Being Hit by a car in the real world has an impact on your Impressions about your biology, your feelings your well being. Being hit by a car in your Mental Impressions has no implications since these impressions DON'T display Empirical Regularities or External Limitations.
-"Don't talk to me about logic, I have a degree in logic."
-buts still you are unable to distinguish your Physical from your Mental Impressions...I guess people can brag about anything...lol
@btw Buddhism is True lets be honest here. We can not go beyond our Cataleptic Impressions and make any credible claims about the underlying nature of reality. What we can say for sure is that our Cataleptic Impressions inform us for two basic types. 1. Our Physical Impressions and 2. Our Mental Impressions.
The first display limitations which are external to our volition and they are empirically regular.
The second type don't share the same qualities. We need to obey the first one or else our existence and well being is in danger.
This is where our limits of proper metaphysics stop. If you are interest in Pseudo Metaphysics then you are way off Philosophy mate.
Not to me. It doesn't even make sense from the physics perspective - which is disturbing since his co-author is a Nobel laureate. I guess it shows that being an expert in black holes doesn't make one an expert in neuroscience.
Her perspective is great! I agree there is intelligent processes going on and there is sooo much that we are not conscious of. Which points to the idea that the brain filters reality- Stuart is double great- I thoroughly enjoyed everyone speaking here! They all make truly amazing points.
The lady on the panel is the smartest. She's absolutely brilliant. Everyone else should have been sent home early.
Consciousness does not arise! Consciousness preceeds all things! You are it. You are the big bang you are the canvas! You are the aperture through which the universe looks back at itself!
Quantify this mathematically please!
I think Hoffman is closest which blows ones mind. And Hameroff work will show how the "Interface" and protocol between mind and brain works.
Tom cambell has a good one also
The debate is enriching. The music analogy is very fascinating. Good music may show you the graphical representation of your internal. Consciousness to some extent.
Wow....lot's of words used to describe something so basic. Consciousness is simply 'awareness.' Emotions, experiences, sensory abilities all spring from consciousness. Keep it simple. When the eye ball tries to turn around to see itself....lot's of words get used to describe something that can never be described by science only. This is where science and spirit must hold hands.
Cool you solved a problem thats thousands of years old
@@fredriksvard2603 I didn't solve anything since it was never a problem to begin with. I am simply stating an observation made by myself, and many others down through the centuries, about consciousness. Humans are notorious for wanting to complicate what lies plainly before them.
@@zephyrblue2032 if you can conclusively say what consciousness is there's a nobel prize for you, it's one of the biggest unsolved questions in science and philosophy
@@fredriksvard2603 Well then, hand it over. Seriously, I don't say any of this conclusively, only from my own observation and experiences. The only reason Consciousness is such a big question to the scientific and philosophic minds is because if they answered it, they would cease to have anything further to question. The answer answers more than just 'what is consciousness.' It is the key to our reality as quantum physics is discovering. The observer changes the form of reality simply by the act of observing. The joke that has the gods laughing is that the observer is unaware of this. (however, this is changing) You are looking for God with gods eyes.
@@zephyrblue2032 if that was the case scientists would be all over it, tweaking it, creating it, analyzing it, and religions would probably fall apart left and right
The answer is simple! You decide how everything will become and consciousness will observe it! After you are dead consciousness will observe that.
Science is closer to providing systems and technologies for experiencing consciousness with reduced "noise" than it is to understanding and describing consciousness in terms of language and intellect.
You have the wrong panel for understanding consciousness. They’re not even close. Scientists, like everyone else must start at the beginning to acquire that knowledge. It’s an inward study.
Consciousness is about embracing all the experiences and insights that you gravitate towards.
Re Hoffman's argument. We don't have a mathematical model of a car. Why should we require one for consciousness?
We can build a model of a car as a large collection of interacting parts, each providing some bit of the functionality needed to propel the car down the road, steer it, stop it, etc, but there is no "formula" that describes "car". In a similar vein, consciousness should be viewed as a large collection of activation patterns, some providing emotion, some providing sensory information, some providing feedback, and on and on. We don't need to wait for a formula - we can break down consciousness into its many facets and work toward understanding how the neural architecture in the brain region responsible for said facet does what it does. We can then make progress, without ever releasing the tether of objective science.
The questions have to be restated. We are all apparently sharing a dream world that may or may not represent reality. The questions we need to ask is what sort of reality can generate such a shared dream. What I mean by dream is that everything we have ever experienced has been the product of our own existing self and we presume the data source is primarily the real world transduced through our senses into electrical impulses which are interpreted by our brain and some part of our brain generates the world we experience/dream.
I love these kind of talks, BUT, they always end up demonstrating perfectly how truly uninvolved we are as a species.
Talks could be much better organized to share perspectives and information, and challenge panel's thought process without turning into a game of who is right and who is wrong.
The meta and epi of these talks should be to create clearity and new questions, not simply to differentiate in contrast's and devolving argument.
Half the time they were heating up in debate, they were not even listening to the words coming out of their own mouths, much less listening to the other's words. Everyone on this panel took a turn misspeaking at least once, and then they continued to argue as if no one had ever misspoke to begin with, like a pack (I know a group of monkey's are not called a pack) of monkey's. To this point Donald seems to be the best at listening.
I understand that only so much preparation can go into one of these talks. If could be much more interesting though, if there was a kind of preparatory forum between the panel members, before the staged conversation. Also adopting more synthesis oriented forum format's could help our specie's to evolve though these sort of talks.
Panel members could be seated in separate focus booths, or even equipped headsets and note assembling tech. The point being that instead of arguing they could quickly compose their thoughts and analogies while LISTENING to others speak.
You could even develop ground rules like no speaking fast when point of view is different from another panel position's. And or, If let's say panel member A. goes into composing, while panel members B. is speaking, panel member B. would be expected to finish thier thought in silent mode composing their thoughts in note form. When both panel members A. and B . are prepared, panel member B. finishes their talking point, the member A. Speaks calmly, while member B. is composing notes quietly, and if necessary this can repeat as many times as necessary. If member C. wants to compose a point all three go into silent mode, composing thoughts. Then they speak in turn calmly, taking turns.
We need to evolve as a species.
It would also be nice if the speakers were listed in order from left to right in the description.
It be nice if you wrote all that about the actual discussion or atleast offered your own opinion about what was discussed
@@zulureflections9408 what? So he can't share his opinion about the organization of the talk? How will the organizers know which aspects they need to improve then? I too thought it was a bit disorganized, and that the points of view could be clearer and the discussion more productive if it was more organized.
Thank you for saying this. This whole thing demonstrated how small minded and limited humans are/think/behave... both in their understanding of the topic of consciousness as well as the manner in which they discussed it, especially in relation to the other perspectives. The irony is that it kind of defeated the purpose of a forum/org. that promotes non-duality. Ugh, I guess science isn't that close after all.
"We're not gonna be on the same page!" Amen.
You will see next what you decide! Simple you decide what you see and which tools you choose to see it with.
Consciousness is using you!
The panelist missing: Dan Winter. Wow... regardless. What an extraordinary panel. This was so worth my time. Thank you.
Amazing discussion.
Consciousness is not an object. You cannot see it. It's what in the back : emptiness, from witch everything appears.
By grace of Supreme father, consciousness is easy to understand.
The only person on the panel with a solid theory based on measurement, observation, prediction and verification is Stuart Hamerof. It does not explain the origin of the mechanisms that consciousness relies upon, but it does show how consciousness is related to the non-computational structure of the universe.
nickolasgaspar That experiment is very interesting, but I'm not sure what your point is in linking it here. Care to elaborate?
I think maybe you haven't understood the propositions of the OrchOR theory, or the history. I think to accuse Hameroff and Penrose of being in any way "unscientific" is going way too far.
The quantum weirdness you talk about is the foundation of whatever reality is. If consciousness is not seated there, and is some kind of emergent property of the connections between neurons, then the "neuron theory" should account for the observations, which is does only in part. The "hard problem" and some problematic observations remain unexplained by the various pan-psychic and emergent theories, unless we remove free will. Penrose was onto this before Hameroff identified a possible location in the microtubules.
Don't you think there is a difference between "mind" and "consciousness"? OrchOR doesn't really seek to explain the mind, which is what happens after consciousness occurs, so your statement that biology is causal does not in any way contradict the OrchOR ideas. To me it is perfectly reasonable to speak of a kind of potential quantum consciousness waiting to be taken advantage of without invoking any magical properties beyond those observed by science.
I like the OrchOR theory because it gives us a location we can examine directly (the microtubules), and energies at many potentials that we can actually measure. We have done this endlessly with neurons and brain activity without gaining any understanding of where consciousness lies. I agree with Penrose's assertion that consciousness cannot be computational.
We will know more when more fastidious experiments are done, but the theory has been around a long time without any solid refutation, although some have tried. Indeed the various criticisms have actually helped the theory become more solid.
It really is the only complete theory of consciousness out there, as far as I know.
MethNat In what way does the ORCH-OR theory conflict with MN? There is nothing supernatural about ORCH-OR. It has testable hypotheses which have so far been substantiated. Measurements have been made, observations and experiments conducted.
If you can pick apart the theory rather than make a series of unsubstantiated counter claims everyone would be very interested, especially Penrose and Hameroff, who have been countering such arguments with great success since the early nineties, and through which process the theory has been made stronger.
Also, if you are not keen on the theory then you need to provide another that explains the "hard problem" of consciousness, and so far ORCH-OR is the only one that does that without relying on panpsychism.
I'm always happy to learn, but you have made a whole bunch of assumptions about my state of understanding that are based on very little, and as a result you are quite wrong about what I need to learn and understand. I hope you don't treat all your social interactions and learning with such abandonment of reason.
MethoNatu I understand the accepted wisdom and I have the basic knowledge you seem to think I lack. It is my considered view, reading for the last 35 years as an interested lay person with a scientific background that the standard theories explain very little about consciousness. They provide only the fuzziest location for consciousness, fail to derive a process for it's emergence, and cannot explain the observations.
ORCH-OR explains much that is seen and experienced, with testable hypotheses that can be verified through experiment. That surely qualifies as a working theory, rather than a simple interpretation. The functioning of the microtubules has been measured, and clearly some non-locational organisation is going on there. Or do you disagree even with that?
If you are saying that the observations are incorrect, that the experiments are botched or otherwise inconclusive then please say so. If there are other explanations for the observations then please describe them, without reference to dogmatic texts. If Hameroff's descriptions of the molecular structures and functions of the microtubules (available in presentations here on UA-cam) are incorrect then can you say what he has wrong? If you only look at the mesoscopic level for the functioning of consciousness then of course you will place the whole thing there! But unless the observed experience of consciousness can be explained at that level you have achieved nothing. Surely THAT is reductionism?
The complexity you say is lacking is entirely within the purview of the theory. The computational power of the microtubules holds vastly more potential for complexity than the standard neuronal models. Or do you argue with that?
Is Hameroff wrong about the measurements of the various vibrational frequencies of the microtubules? There are so many details you could attack here, the fact that you attack none of them and rely almost exclusively on philosophy and sophistry seems to weaken your argument.
There are plenty of details you can win on! I'd love to hear your thinking.
The hard problem is only hard when you don't have a testable explanation for it. Clearly, it does "poison the well" since it is the size of an elephant! Any hypothesis or theory that cannot derive experience from the functions of the theory isn't a viable theory, and is indeed only an interpretation (the very thing you accuse ORCH-OR of being).
If consciousness resides in the microtubules, and is a result of interactions with the quantum world, then you should be able to switch consciousness off if you switch off the functioning of the microtubules. That is how anaesthetics work, so the theory looks very good in that regard. How do the various neuronal theories explain where consciousness goes? How does it come back? How can neurons retain consciousness in a state of abeyance for perhaps several hours and then reconstitute it as it was before?
On that, the neuronal functioning of the brain is not grossly affected by anaesthetics. Hameroff explains that when performing spinal surgery they monitor neuronal function to make sure signals are still travelling around the body, and it can be seen that under anaesthetic many brain functions persist. It would be too facile to say ONLY consciousness is affected, since there are other effects, but it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the action of anaesthetics on the microtubules (as suggested by the solubility test) is what causes consciousness to depart.
ORCH-OR offers a testable explanation for the functioning of a paramecium and for the prescience of action before thought. None of this is magical if it is connected to the quantum world, where time and matter works very differently.
The God hypothesis provides no mechanism, no location, nothing testable. To compare it with the work of Roger Penrose shows that you have very little understanding of what the theory proposes. So far you have been mistaken about every representation of the work you have made, almost as if your mind is closed, or perhaps you are basing your criticism on this video alone. The theory is unrecognisable from your description of it and the assumptions you seem to make about what it proposes.
Perhaps your microtubules are clogged!
[No offence - I find this discussion interesting, and I don't blame you for being resistant. It's a lot to accept if you come to it cold, or have a different background. I accept your view as being well formed from what you know, and maybe the whole thing is smoke and mirrors perpetrated by plausible con men. But I really don't think so. I'm usually quite good at spotting them.]
MethoNatu That's very sad. I have no existential anxiety. Again, you make assumptions about me.
I note that you answer none of the concrete points, and say "bad science" without providing a single example of which experiments or observations have been misinterpreted. I set it up for you man!
Peace.
I'm having that English as a second language experience.
+MajorCulturalDivide, no doubt. I couldn't get through the first round of opening statements. Droll.
the word droll means funny.
Me too. Strange, since I speak no other languages.
Consciousness is imagining, observing and understanding the matter wave.
An activity happens--a man in a car goes from point A to B. As per science this activity is nothing but four wheels in synchronised motion which is the reason for this activity.
As per the holistic view of spirituality one person got on the wheels, started the engine, activated the steering wheel and orchestrated this activity to the market. The movement of the wheels was an important effect and part of the activity and not the entire event.
The person decision to take the car was the most vital part which is what consciousness is in our lives.
1:48:55 - listen to Don Hoffman speak the unbelievable truth - suck it up folks
Alan Alldredge Something like that, yes. Or as close as we can describe it using the frames of reference we currently have a our disposal.
nickolasgaspar I know how you think consciousness comes about, because you just posted on another thread - you say it's an emergent property. But before you start slapping your forehead, face palming or wittering on about 'woo woo', put up the references that prove that.
The panel here are trying to shed some light on this most mysterious of phenomena. They are fully aware of what we do and do not know, unlike you.
nickolasgaspar "if what they are proposing as interpretations are falsifiable or not."
As I said, Hoffman is very specific that any theory with regards to consciousness should be falsiifiable. You haven't even listened to what he has to say, because you assume you know.
Instead of rubbishing the work that these folk are doing you should welcome the fact that someone is making a serious attempt to address this most intractable problem (the so-called 'hard problem') instead of pretending that it doesn't exist.
nickolasgaspar 'But I really have a problem with the title of the video'
Which is 'How Close is Science to Understanding Consciousness'. Implicit in the title is the fact that present scientific understanding is not able to describe consciousness, which it isn't. In order to further our understanding then we have to try and find a way forward which involves discussion. If you're saying that Hoffmann Stapp et al are 'pseudo scientists' then of course you're wrong. They know what they're talking about.
nickolasgaspar The truth is, dude, is not that this discussion is 'idealist' or 'pseudo scientific' in nature, it is that it doesn't suit your idea of what you think science should be. This is not 'my metaphysics' and they are not 'pretending to know things they don't'.
Pls give exact examples of the points in this discussion where, in your opinion, they descend into pseudo science.
They are describing something which is indescribable and will then end up over-thinking it and never get anywhere.
There are different levels of consciousness (awareness or vibrational frequences) and we as humans evolved from animal in order to understand our true nature as the ultimate consciousness (the primal source of energy) incarnated in the physical form to achieve self-realisation.
Some spiritual gurus talk about consciousness in an easier way for the human thinking mind to understand sufficiently but it is even better if it is experienced (through meditation etc).
"We need more light about each other. Light creates understanding, understanding creates love, love creates patience, and patience creates unity."
Choice. This or that. The ability to decide based on experience. Experiencing 1 thing offers nothing. Awareness of 2 things offers choice and thought.
Consciousness is.
Consciousness was not.
NOT
@@efini_fc4276 I think it always was. For me, to say otherwise is meaningless.
@@johnnyb8825 consciousness is nothing without memory. Memory exists within physical form, but the action of memory is not physical as it's the state of energy that is slowed/captured by matter. The energy in our own brains and even memory cards are currents of electricity, "saved" in specific patterns within some sort of physicalities.
When you consider that the universe and all of its contents known were once collected at one origin- that's saying nothing apart from this mass of pure energy could have been witnessed.. Conscious or not.
Imagine you are floating in space with none of your human senses available, but you are conscious. What can you sense? How would you sense anything when there's nothing but you, and no way to input memory when the only experience in your existence is you? ........how would you know you exist?
Prior to whatever the event was that set everything on the historical path leading up to where we are today, nothing existed, simply because memory requires a form to hold for consciousness.
What was the first memory that existed? Existence. The acknowledgement of existence.
Whether it was just a reaction or a recognition, what existed before would not be known without experience -we're saying the beginning of time itself.
Time is relative to day and night, or essentially a beginning and an end. If consciousness "is", then it is EVERY thing. The only "thing" that everything can't be though is nothing. When there is no thing, there's..... Zero. Every communication of what zero is relates to something being reduced to nothing, but how can you have nothing from something? Like an apple.. if you eat the last apple on Earth, it's common to think there is now zero apples. Not the actual case though...the properties of the apple are just in a different form.
The idea of zero is just that- only a conscious thought, in any absolute. This means that consciousness created the thought/idea/"existence" of such a word- zero, within something (matter/memory).
"Consciousness was not" -available until it reacted with matter. But consciousness as energy, is and always has existed.
There's limitations in this physical world we live in, but within the mind, anything is possible. You can imagine you are a bird or a carrot if you'd desire. This ability to create anything within the mind should also recognise that the energy present within the mind, has the ability to translate thoughts into the physical world. The mind -or electricity (essentially) is just bottled up into a quite unique form of matter called humans. But electricity has no form and it cannot be sensed without matter. It's this universality that makes everyone an individual, but also relative in the essence of energy...it's what we've all got, regardless of race or heritage. When the same energy within us all is collected into one mass, all consciousnesses work as one.
Consciousness is, only after it was not. I should've just said that, huh?😔
@Justin Quezada anything you know is because you are conscious.
Consciousness is this, here, right now, being aware.
Consciousness is the base of all reality , it's not understandable, it's the reason we can understand , it's the eternal mystery . It's being in itself .
Weve said that about things that turned out to be understandable with new science
I personally think we are in some kind of simulation/experience in conciousness, conciousness/energy/matter/data/information are fundemental, interchangable and infinite
Bingo! We are in a 3d density virtual reality simulation to evolve conciosness and lower entropy.
There seems to be a growing consensus amongst the scientific community that consciousness occurs at the sub atomic level without the need for complex information processing to be present. This disregards the notion of consciousness as being a product of complex information processing. On the other hand, many proponents of artificial conscious are hanging their hat on the possibility that consciousness arises as a result of complex information processes (which includes digital memory banks in the articial mind i.e computers). However, if consciousness is present below complex information processing levels then the artifical minds of computers has already began with a calculator or other simple computing devices in the same way insects could be as conscious as human beings. This does not tie into the findings from lab experiments that bumblebees are able to be trained and make conscious decisions regarding their environment which other insects are unable to do. The fact that bees have nearly a million brain cells, suggests a minimum level of complex system processing is required for consciousness to occur.
Very interesting
These folks are brilliant intellects, and each a very distinct perspective on the subject. Stuart Hammeroff and Chris Fields especially. It blew my mind over and over again and gave me chills. It's a fascinating time to be alive. As science advances, the two roads, science and the spiritual, converge! Very exciting! But there is a time to put aside the intellect, the mind, and experience one's consciousness empirically, in meditation... just observe. See where that takes you.
PLEASE increase the volume. It is difficult to hear imho
A better question would be how close can science ever get to understanding consciousness? What reason do we have to believe that there will ever be a final answer?
If science is unable to define consciousness, how could it possibly hope to understand it? Would you regard a system as possessing consciousness if it was simply able to read, retain and recall as you do? Presumably, you would add "understanding what is read and recalled. Yet, you fail to recognize the futility of trying to understand that for which you have, absolutely, no cogent definition. Therefore, The obvious question is, are you conscious?
Nobody has been completely conscious yet
yay for Stapp! Consciousness is an idea. Descartes would be proud
Good point: our understanding of touch and taste is far less intimate compared to vision and hearing, making the former a much more fertile ground for the study of consciousness.
Consciousness is everything and nothing too.
Hameroff and Hoffman should work together...great exchange
Consciousness is basically being aware of your mind & its working, watching it, the best way of explaining it is as Echart does you step back behind your mind & become totally self aware, most people & i was too totally controlled by their minds, i am no longer so i can choose to be free of thought completely or choose what want to think about, my mind is a tool that i use when i choose to, because my mind spends alot of periods in a no thought state it means whatever i am doing i am 100 percent doing it not doing it & thinking thoughts of being elsewhere or what i am doing tomorrow for instance also when i choose to use my mind it works well, i come up with answers to problems that are perfect answers which i never thought i would be capable of as i’m not that bright..
This isnt what theyre discussing, theyre discussing how something made of matter can have subjective experiences, how it can "be something" to be a human
Science needs to agree on a definition, this was a good display of how the different sciences are locked in an eternal battle for supremacy
Hi, Science has helped us to disprove some thing or confirm some thing is not the way as it is or it should be .Further more ,to create an awareness that the natural resources in nature are polluted or destroyed.ultimately information remains in Consciousness , all the rest are play of the conscious Mind. Thanks
Can progress be made in understanding Artificial Intelligence, using traditional intellectual tools and methods? If not, what alternative tools and methods are available and where are they to be found? In order to understand these questions, failures in current analytical systems must first be recognized. Modern media platforms throw up all manner of opinions and platitudes submitted by people with absolutely no ability or intention to offer solutions. This is not one of them. I do have a series of experiment proposals to bring this study where it needs to be in order to answer the above questions, which can make a significant contribution to defining and understanding the process of mind, consciousness, and intelligence and help provide a structured context from which to discuss the issue of AI and construct solutions to mitigate the associated risks.
The scientific and academic communities have been unable to define consciousness, and are subsequently unable to understand it. As a consequence, they will be unable to predict AI’s behavior, its reasoning process and the value systems which may result from them. In my analysis, some of the reasons why consciousness has proven to be so resistant to defining are obvious once one asks the right questions, apply the contextual framework and put to rest, persistent assumptions which have ultimately led nowhere. I will not engage directionless discussions on this subject. I will, however, discuss some detail of the experimental work with potential funders of the projects.
The best things can never be told. We’re Gods theater of fools we keep him entertained. Love listening to these brilliant minds.... where is Rupert?
Julia Mossbridge seems to be the only one who talks any sense here.Consciousness is the awareness of self by self. And why are people getting hung up on 'feelings'? I have feelings but I am NOT my feelings - about the first thing you learn as you start to investigate consciousness - it's what (or why) 'I' is which, surely, is consciousnesses.
With due respect for everyone's viewpoint i believe we should ask children what they think and explain consciousness... i'm saying this because when i was a kid, someone broke it down for me that Santa does not exist. When i heared that i didnt say anything. But i knew that it isnt true. Because Santa does exist if only as a character in culture. And just like anything else, everything a man is able to concieve in his mind, exists....in his mind.. all these years later i cant believe how much closer i was to understanding reality and consciousness... much closer than i am today. And now remembering that occasion i honestly think that kids would offer the closest and most simplest explanations regarding such elusive topics
There's a consciousness that pre-existed the universe...God
We're just hitching a ride on the flowing river.
That which can be explained is not that .
We are God
Please get a new moderator...............................
Consciousness is the permutation and combination of all the neurones along with the psychology in our brain and mind, so in order to find what is conscious and we have to study the single cell nueron
Does a single pixel say anything about the image as a whole
@@fredriksvard2603 interesting
From direct raw experience (sensations - including thought and emotions) we infer the existence of a mind (subject) and an external world (object). To explain their interaction we hypothesize a quality called "consciousness" - which we then find "baffling". (Just bringing us up to date here.)
Consciousness
After some six years or so, I wonder, whose standing has solidified more and whose standing has been weakened more?
Consciousness can only be described by Superposition: Past and Present described as NOW. A feedback loop that gives us a frame of reference in which we narrow down self from everything else. Me and Now distinct from you and there. Consciousness is 2 states of time at ONCE (NOW). A chord of sensation, the ability to perceive the long note, many notes at once, the building to a climax of a song, or the flow of a melody. The taste of chocolate or the smell of a rose are simply algorithms tuned to detect changes over time of incoming information. Chocolate's taste and a Rose's smell are experienced over time condensed into a single moment well beyond a second, which makes finding that sequence of events and the algorithmic process that renders them as independent agents next to impossible. But we will, with Quantum computers doing AI, break the code of consciousness. We will discover, it is an artifact of the brain's ability to do Quantum Mechanics, to invoke superposition which makes a unique thing observable, ONLY over time, as one.
I want people to start thinking about what we will do when we reach our maximum potential and learn everything there is to know about reality! I think we should simulate a universe for a virtual being. The being will initially be programed to be intellectually curious and rational.The simulator would instill enlightenment in this being throughout his virtual life, play games with him by implying his universe is a simulation, put obstacles in his way, and allow him to obtain his dreams through hardships. In other words, play god with him. In the end, the simulator will reveal to the being he was in fact a simulation. This idea would be more rewarding and enjoyable than playing a high tech video game.
Lots of people think were in such a simulation
They ought to acquaint themselves with the work of Bernado Kastrup.
Energy is not a singularity but many, human emotions with various energy radiating different levels of energy vibrations varied through self thought affecting human nature individual-ally and collectively resonating, separation is not real if I can accept it everyone can ❤
They are mostly talking Cosmology and Quantum Physics; not much of Consciousness. Please read KENOPANISHAD from Vedanta of the Ancient India. Better still, Swami Sarvapriyananda's discourses on YOU TUBE at San Diego. Even better, Swami Atma Chaitanya's two postings on You Tube on Non-duality.
My father has advanced prostate cancer. Since then I've been trying to work out what happens after death.
I think many people would agree that when you die, that is it. You are done, your memories gone, and your perceptions, including the perception of time ends. Then, it seems you are back at the situation of how "you" were before being born. "you" do not exist.
However, Earth (& maybe other planets) continue to create a firehose of life.
The big question is this: Does every organism have a "me"? Or do only sentient organisms receive a "me"?
If every organism has a "me", then being able to have another first person experience on Earth seems impossible. Why? Because there are about 20 quadrillion quadrillion bacteria dying and getting created every 24 hours. At death, another organism is born, most likely a bacteria and that could be "you". Then "you" must wait 12 hours until "you" die before you get another chance to play the life lottery.
On the other hand, if we can assume that non-sentient life and sentient life before it develops a mind runs itself, without any "me" attached, then maybe the only time a "me" is created is after a sentient life has connected a mind to its body and created sentience. During that process of starting up the consciousness a first person "me" begins to form. First person because it is the organism creating the mind which creates consciousness. In this case, it seems our next life might start almost immediately after we die.
So which is it?
They're all really overthinking this.
The distinction presented at around 33:33 between consciousness as a fundamental reality and as an individual experience is made up. That distinction is not fundamental. They are the same thing. All distinctions and all declarations of anything as being separate from anything else are made up. At the source of all things, there is no separation - all is one.
lol after Chris fields said he was making a bold statement and saying awareness is primary and eternal and science needs to readjust itself, everyone started making basically no sense and just useless arguing until they slowly basically started to make a 180 and started to say what Chris had been saying half the time. but were all learning.
Where are the subtitles????????????????????????????????????????????
The Beauty and the tragedy is just because you're a scholar doesn't mean you have ever experienced higher consciousness, because it is exactly that, a realization of infinite intelligence, it's like a realization of the warmth and energy of the Sun, unfortunately you can be a scholar and never experience the realization of the Sun because you look everywhere else, you don't learn a realization, you experience it
Consciousness is living awareness of the fact that we drew the short straw in heaven and now our only solace is cheeseburgers and pizza. Alcohol helps at times as well. You can shorten your time here by getting married and having children and reduce your time even more by letting your mother-in-law move in after the kids all leave home. No, I’m not writing a book to take your money - this is free of charge.
Im confused.. i always just understood consciousness as an evolutionary trait of our brain that has aloud us not to let our history repeat itself. Its just neurons firing in the brain. Moments in time make memory that our brain then overlays consciousness to decide ratyer we want that "history" to repeat.
Simple answer, not even close and probably never will.
From our left to right, can someone please give the names of these participants?
I would be very interested in Henry Stapp's opinions as a QM researcher as to how QM relates to human consciousness, but I don't know which one is he without listening intently to the whole conversation to catch the names, and my time is unfortunately limited.
The problem with a definition of consciousness that includes only relative consciousness (observer, object observed, and process of observing) is that it is a theory about an illusion rather than reality: it cannot be used to locate the one, universal awareness that is the only ultimate existence, according to deep subjective researchers such as Rupert Spira. Such a theory cannot lift either the individual or the world from limitation, lacking, and suffering to unchangeable peace and happiness.
+David Spector
Left to Right the speakers are:
Donald Hoffman, Stuart Hameroff, Julia Mossbridge, Henry Stapp, Chris Fields, and facilitator AH Almaas.
+David Spector 'Such a theory cannot lift either the individual or the world from limitation, lacking, and suffering to unchangeable peace and happiness.' that's one of my worries about studying this intractable and seemingly probably even futile 'hard problem'.
+Lincoln Yu If you are referring to the "hard problem of consciousness" which is its relationship to the body, the advaita (nondual) teachers such as Rupert Spira make it very clear that this is only a hard problem if we ourselves believe that the mind, body, and world are primary truths, with the experience of consciousness emerging from them, that is, from matter. However, if we consider a different philosophy, in which consciousness is the primary truth and the mind, body, and world emerge from it, only appearing to be separate, then, based on our actual experience that the world or matter are only perceptions through the senses, we realize easily that consciousness has no problems to it, be they hard ones or otherwise. That is why nonduality is such a practical philosophy of life, and why some scientists are intrigued with it, as shown in this video.
Donald rocks...try watching he and Deepak Chopra have a discussion about this, so interesting and enlightening!
☮💓🙏🕉
Let's focus science towards happiness and well being!
Write a formula for that please quantum speakers!
What i am interested in Is why I am I, could any consciousness never ever be born?
Transcendence of Consciousness self interacts with subjective possibilities. Hence the wholeness of existence is inextricably connected to neural networks. Perceptual reality is some dimension of boundless phenomena. Hence the materials of the physical world are collective responses of the all observers put together. The mind thus influences the activities of the brain. The mind conditions itself to create experiences. You cannot find the point where atoms/molecules become consciousness. As science looks into universe as observer independence the empirical relations of mind can never be made!
+staraet As I say, it looks like a fractal to me wherein the source is imbued in the whole but from different perspectives appears to be totally different. The body follows the mind. What is in the mind is not of the body except as it can be monitored. Energy fields merely mimic conscious activity. Conscious activity is the being-ness of I AM. One is all, all are One.
+John Carter Nice point.
The sleep state and medical general anesthesia are two completely different states of consciousness. When you're asleep, you are not unconscious.
Counsciousness will be achieved very easily. Once we create beings with brain equivalent functions, counsciousness will result. We still will not fully understand it, though. But our understanding is irrelevant. Most people won't even understand what ChatGPx says, so understanding counsciousness doesn't really matter either.
but where is Nassim Harremein? seems kind of rude not to invite him to this when he is coming up with math to explain things people have believed for a long time.
What They’re talking about is awareness not consciousness.
Or actually i am & its more a case i can concentrate on each thing as im doing or thinking it
I also love a lot of what Stuart offer's our species, but he does tend to run a little warm, and thusly tends to harbor wave function tendencies that assume there is always a wave collapse, leaving no room for cooler heads to prevail with more accurate assumptions about eigenstate eigenvalue's.
Donald was keeping it real cool and super virtual though, something Henry should appreciate as a proponent of orthodox quantum mechanics.
They are no where near to understanding consciousness... scienceandnonduality should invite Swami Sarvapriyananda to understand what advaita vedanta says about consciousness
Swamiji would make them all look like the mental dwarf under Nataraja's dancing foot.This is not a "non-duality" conference and it's upsetting to me that they bill it as such. It's strictly a Neo-Advaita Vedanta conference which is such a poor bastardization and cheapening of Advaita they would never stand next to Swamiji. Advaita is about oneness of consciousness -- neo-Advaita is about oneness of "me" --" I am everything"-- which we could have known from Instagram. The Advaita belief Thou art THAT has been inverted to THOU art that. It's a mess but by reducing all concepts of consciousness to something that science can grapple with we will perfect the artificial intelligence, the consciousness pills and surgical manipulations, the gene splicing and all the other reasons science even pursues this alley. The military will use it to create perfect soldiers and drones, the marketers will use it to move minds to the products instead of products to the minds. The car will drive itself so you don't have to look up from the advertisements and propaganda on your phone screen . . .ever.
Trust me this stage full of fat heads is not going to try reversing the collapse of the whatnot wave by the power of collective consciousness to benefit all sentient beings.
6 years later and still nothing
it is obvious that consciousness is not in matter but it's experienced by matter, however its spiritual as expected from a spiritual creature. animals are aware of their environment but they are not spiritual conscious.
A very interesting discussion. Thank you one and all.
Time is the first division of symmetry, a fractal curve.
Light is the next division, a hologram.
Dynamics is a fluctuation of symmetry.
Understanding is a fluctuation of truth.
All people have an incomplete vocabulary. We are using words to describe
reality, we are painting a picture with words of what we think reality
is, but this image is incomplete. There is always a subjective portion
of this image that varies from person to person, this is a dynamic
fluctuation. Understanding is fluctuating as well as truth.
There is what I will call the religion of the ten thousand lies. It does
not matter which of the lies you believe, it is all the same religion.
Then there is truth, which I will call a secure foundation. Truth is the
core of reality, and branching out from this is the reality we
perceive. We are in the gray region between truth and chaos. Truth has
the most potential and chaos has the most variation. Our only connection
to truth is in the echos of creation and there is no way back to the
place where it came from.
+Rick D. What about awareness?
+Rick D. maybe it hasn't come from where it appears to have come from. like a tree appearing out while within the seed.
+Rick D., one might consider consciousness to be like a fractal. The same everywhere, but different in how it shows up. In every instance, the original can be found as a replica of the source. And all are connected. One is all, all are one.
+Rick D. The foundation of reality is uncertainty.
+Dito Because uncertainy feeds evolutions. That explains why fear of uncertainty is the ggreatest and most basic fear which leads to elimination of the holders of such fear. Love does not exist where fear exists and that is why when a parent worries about a child love cannot be felt. The two are noncompatible.
They are using the word conscious differently - the basic nature and human experience
Consciousness is awareness of knowledge from a first person perspective. Knowledge resides in memory. When awake we are only aware of reality after it gets into memory. When asleep we are aware of what resides in memory and what is derived from memory - there is no fresh reality brought into memory. Knowledge may be communicated to a second person who receives it through a first person perspective. The first person has no awareness of a second person's knowledge until it is communicated. In dreams both persons reside in the same physical brain. The mind is an abstraction that resides in a physical brain.
Consciousness **is** a first person perspective, it is not "awareness of knowledge" from a first person perspective. What are you calling memory? Memories in terms of awareness can only be systems of experience. Consciousness is the fact of experience. In sleep (or more precisely, in dreams) there is still a 'fact of experience' therefore consciousness. Also, there are now **many** experiments done which show that person B can pick up knowledge from person A, especially at subconscious (e.g.galvanic skin response) levels. While this does not formally prove that consciousness is possible in some sense without brains, it is certainly the most likely interpretation. Understand that concluding that consciousness is possible without brains (and I do conclude that) is not the same as concluding that mind is possible without brains (though that is not impossible either).
@@marineboyecosse I am not familiar with submarine ESL. Which sea are you from?
@@casiandsouza7031 That would be the Atlantic ;)
@@marineboyecosse it seems memory could be distinguished into that which may be directly accessed and that which requires a trigger.
I liked how Henry Stapp exposed ORCH-OR for the vacuous fantasy it is. Even if the effect QM entanglement can be shown, it doesn't explain why the subjective experience occurs, any more than orthodox neuroscience explains it via neural activity patterns.
This is a conference on loosing consciousness. AKA falling asleep.
Never seen bunch of hippies discuss something so intelligently