There's vast literature about "consciousness," in Hindu scriptures & it also has the same observations on many stages or phases of conscious experience...
You're right about that, but lots of it is misleading, take Gravity, it has been factual, and totally DEBUNKED, yet they continuously sells it as a FACT .
for sure, to be aware of self allows one to feel capable of influencing ones self for the betterment of ones self. Being aware that you are aware, helps even more so.
@@giftofgod8234 I disagree, because "creating" reality is adverse to consciousness. Nobody really controls his mind. That's an illusion or a contradictory concept. Choosing the criterions for choosing leads to an infinite loop. Choosing without criterions is an oxymoron.
An excellent talk; clear and orderly presentation, tempered claims with basic evidences provided. Thank you Professor Anil Seth, and thank you to The Royal Institution for making these talks public!
@Hitogokochi The physical causes of color, sound, taste, and pain are very well understood. Color is the perception of physical wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation (light) hitting the physical cells in the back of your eye, sending electrical signals to the part of your brain that processes the signals. Flavor is similar, though it's the interaction of various chemicals with cells in your tongue, instead of light (this one applies to cheese; fats, salts, and fermented microorganisms all have different chemical compositions which your tongue can detect). Pain is the activation of physical cells that specifically measure pressure, heat, etc. Sound is literally physical vibration of air, drumming your eardrum, which, of course, sends electrical signals to the brain. These are all physical processes. Though consciousness is a higher order function, and therefore more difficult to research, understand, and explain, you could benefit from looking up the term "emergent property". Properties of this nature are often complex, though they arise from much simpler properties coming together. Also, if science is clueless, then how do you explain the computer and internet (among virtually everything else in your life) available to you?
@Hitogokochi Thank you for a more thoughtful response (even though you question whether I'm conscious or not). The fact the the scientific community does not fully understand something doesn't mean "science is clueless", your comment, which raised my hackles. I understand the gap you're referring to, that we don't know how consciousness arises from the brain, but I'm stating that there is a distinct possibility that it is an emergent property of physical matter. Matter is not "dead". All matter is fundamentally energy (Einstein also understood this), the latest understanding being that each fundamental "particle" is a wave of probablity within its own specialized field, each field overlapping with all the other fields (i.e. Higgs boson exists in the Higgs field, etc.). At the very foundation of matter, it can't even possibly be "dead", because it IS ACTIVITY. Matter itself is an emergent property of fluctuations in these fundamental fields, so, for matter to create further emergent properties does not seem illogical at all. Particularly when discussing the human brain, which is an incredibly complex network of billions of electrical signals, ongoing for decades, with several sophisticated input systems (your senses). Obviously, no one has settled this question, but I find a physical basis compelling. What is your hypothesis for the rise of consciousness?
+Naimul Haq It's kind of inferred that other animals are conscious, given that most of what he talked about applies to non-humans as well. In fact, he even talked about other animals (such as mice) in some parts of the lecture.
Sorry bro, but what you said or anyone says cannot be proved(even what I say cannot be proved). This universe is way too complicated for us mere humans to understand...
The definition of reality is not well defined. And as such, is only of a pragmatic usefulness to us. Trying to draw a line between real and unreal as a ontological truth is a exercise which cannot be done without referring to a non-entity, and therefore invalidating the definition.
@@100ghillie On a practical level science proceeds just fine without getting into the existential weeds so to speak. Depends on what our goals are. If we want to manipulate and harness the physical forces of nature then the scientific method (which utilizes a pragmatic form of logical positivism) works great. If we want to dive into our true nature and raise our standard for truth we have to explore the philosophical tenets of radical skepticism. For radical skepticism presents logically consistent and concise refutations of logic and language itself. The results of this is seeing that logic and language are paradoxical and circular by their very nature, and require starting assumptions which we plug in, as in algebra. Otherwise the system itself is not completely airtight and from a certain perspective all that we consider true is equally false. In the end we are left with a choice to transcend mental concepts or live in a state of logical contradiction and tension. The universe is paradoxical and contradictory and only nondiscriminatory pure awareness can approach life with an acceptance of that fact. I believe meditation is the most direct path to this deeper unitive awareness. But everything I am saying is just words so each person can journey as far as they want. Mainstream science doesn't need these existential issues, but for us to use science wisely we need to grapple with the existential on an experiential level. I can clarify if what I wrote sounds like word vomit. 😂
Though its mainly about perception and less about the question he asks in the beginning "why is life in first person". I think he smartly avoids showing the actual lack of data/evidence/knowledge about those things and distracts us with a lot of progress in the fields of perception and how our senses work.
"why is life in first person" is not a very good question. I would answer "how is life in first person" by saying simply, because of locality, i.e. "No matter where you go, there you are". I fail to see why it's any more complicated than that.
+Dan Searle The true question is "why am I me, and not you?". Once you start getting down this path, the answer narrows itself down immensely. All you have to do is think about the limits of what a brain can physically do. As in, how can you change a brain, and how would your perspective shift with said changes? Change number 1: Cutting out bits of your brain. Would part of your perspective die with it? Or would your perspective die completely, and a new one takes your place? Change number 2: Cutting a brain in half, but cloning each half and then recombining each original with it's cloned counterpart, creating two new brains, each with half of you. Which brain would be you? Both? Neither? If both, that implies that you exist no matter what happens to the atoms making up your synapses, so this should extend to singular particles as well. As in, particle interactions form qualia, but qualia can only experience with a brain. But if neither brain is you, then that implies that you are the sum of your synapses, and any change in them would kill you and create a new qualia with every change (i.e. you 'die' all the time, without even knowing). Sadly, these experiments are useless because it's impossible to measure someone's qualia. Still, one implies that everyone technically has the same qualia (as it's intrinsic to field interactions), while the other implies that qualia is a finicky thing that changes all the time. Either that, or qualia doesn't exist at all, but that's not really something we can consider.
Cortster"why am I me, and not you?", again I would say it's best to ask the "how" version of that question, and again the answer is the same, locality. 1: I would still be me, just different. 2: I would split into two parts, each part would be their own, they both could say "I..." Again, I fail to see why this is a complicated question. Consciousness is an emergent property of the physical brain, each brain (network of connected neurons) gives rise to it's own consciousness. QED.
This lecture speaks volumes about the progress we are making towards understanding ourselves and the nature/notion of consciousness. I believe it's impossible to truly understand the essence of what we are, which is pure consciousness, in its entirety with the limits of the human brain, but by acknowledging it in science and continuously questioning ourselves, our world, and how we perceive it all, we are stepping closer to the truth, which in turn can/will help in aiding the enlightenment of ourselves and others. It was very interesting hearing him talk, and I admire the amount of work, studies, and experimentation he's conducted surrounding a subject that seems (at least to me) so difficult to obtain real evidence and progression. Thank you for this. "With so often in science, with greater understanding comes a larger sense of wonder and a greater realization that we are part of, and not apart from, the rest of nature"
I am so grateful and I want to thank you for the lectures that I heard from you. You belong to a growing group in the world that teaches and illuminates and heals many dark and wounded souls. I don't know Neuroscience of Consciousness but in my opinion an excellent and amazing lecture. You have personally enlightened me important points in the physics and medical sciences. So I would like to wish you Good luck to you Anil Seth For any way you choose to go Always that the cosmos will illuminates to you the way even in the darkest places. Love you.❤️
I was comatose after a car accident in 2005. During this time I was more conscious than when I was awake. I cannot explain this nor have I met a doctor who could. Consciousness is forever.
I enjoyed this lecture and learning the excellence of knowledge advance where Anil Seth takes a pivot role. Particularly, I find correlation with metaphysical higher consciousness "knowing" where he explains the "top down" comprehension of predictive information that is then constrained by our mental intellects in perception - rather than a feed of building upon basic information to form a solid decision of a material reality. In the realm of Supernatural, this is how we "predictively perceive" from past or future. We allow our decision making process to stay with greater boundaries than the diminished hard coded analytics of brain definition of reality. In simpler terms we use our imagination to source information and then allow the perception to form without the normative constraints of physical mental controls. It shows me that scientific approaches are even closer to transcending a relational flow of higher awareness. But truly, this is a video about "cognition" - i.e., the mental understanding of reality from those five sense approaches rather than bridging into the realm of metaphysic or greater consciousness - where as physics now addresses, there is no scientific blind control because the brain and our mental understanding limits the existence of the consciousness to a mundane, material level in the same manner as he now explains. Thanks for your knowledge sharing.
I'm a computer programmer. This give me a unique insight into the nature of consciousness. To me, consciousness is a very simple thing to understand. In my opinion, consciousness is an elementary process in the brain that always tries to resolve 2 questions. 1) What is going on? This is analogous to input(s). 2) What should I do? This is analogous to output(s). There are sub-processes in each stage but the sequence of these questions(stages) repeat continuously all the time while we live. Consciousness also continues while we sleep. The biggest difference between awake and sleeping is that the brain is deprived of most of our senses and the loop time of these two stages is much longer. On the first question "What is going on?", our brains try to make sense of all the available senses(touch, taste, etc.). The brain also uses it's memories and it's reasoning in this stage. On the second question "What should I do?", our brains try to form a response to the first question. One of the main sub-questions to be resolved in this stage is "what is most important at this time". A decision is made like rest or run or talk about something.
Here's a question with that analogy in mind: Why does the routine run at all? Second question: By this understanding a dog, horse, chicken, lizard etc has consciousness. How far down the Tree of Life does this descend? To plants? Amoeba? Viruses? The Earth itself or the glalaxies? Not trying to trash your insight but I would like to know how robust you see it being.
@@djanitatiana To your first question, I would think that it has to do with the evolution of brains/minds. As to your other questions, on the small end of the spectrum, when amino acids start to creating molecules that cooperate with each other. On the large end of the spectrum, groups of living beings that cooperate with each other regardless of distance. On a related note, I think life starts with the ability to make a choice.
@@dennistucker1153 Thank for getting back Dennis, I really didn't expect an answer on a comment 3 years old! So, on the first, the same forces that drive evolution also drive consciousness? Fair enough, although God knows what they are... I guess the second question means consciousness starts with single cell creatures (prokaryotes) but not viruses, say. Do viruses make a choice? Probably not. Do bacteria? Hmmm. Tough one. Maybe.. DO you think consciousness can only exist in the cooperation of amino acids, or that a stratum for consciousness can exist in other arrangements of substrates? Thanks again for your answer.
I will not agree that nothing interesting has been written about consciousness until 1999 but I deeply admire the intensity of the will, to find what it is and what it is not, shown in this masterful presentation.
I used to think that consciousness was merely an evolutionary „side effect“. A necessary evil for information (DNA) to survive and reproduce. I read a few books on the darwinian evolution of consciousness and some of their authors were smoothly able to make a sensible case for the gradual evolution of the conscious agent or it’s capabilities. For example the evolution of vision is very comprehensible and well explained, how you can get from a fuzzy shadow to more distinct shadow and light impressions to very delicate forms and a broad spectrum of shades and colors. It’s essentially the same for all the „skills“ of a conscious agent. Their gradual evolution and the conscious judgments that accompany them are very much understandable. The big question to me is: *when did the first conscious being become conscious*, when and how did the first „I“ appear and how was it for this I to have come into existence. How was the transition from „not self“ to „self“ for the agent. Ultimately it comes down to only two possibilities if we say that consciousness gradually evolves over time. One option is that nothing is *really* conscious and consciousness is actually just „less dead“, „less unconscious“ than completely dead matter or *dead with some extra*. This means that hypothetically „zombies“ could be real somewhere in the cosmos if the conscious agent is not a necessity for information to be processed and an agent to survive. The second possibility is that everything is at its core conscious just varying in degree of consciousness, from almost no consciousness to almost full blown consciousness. I don’t think that humans are „fully“ conscious and a bacterium *might* be even less conscious and an alien type 3 civilization *might* be even more conscious than we are. Or they might ALL be equally conscious or unconscious just with different tools of measuring the world. Our concept of consciousness is as good as our concept of life and I think both face the same problem ultimately. Either everything is alive or nothing is and what we experience is just a gradual evolution of what makes a thing alive, what makes it conscious. I tried a psychedelic drug for the first time just pretty recently and even with a very rational and totally materialistic view on the universe, some things dawned on me under the influence of this psychedelic drug. Under its influence evolutionary necessities like distribution of meaning, a sense of self, a sense of reality completely fell apart and what was left was a consciousness that made experiences through the lense of the brain, through the lense and the sensory nervous system of the body. However the conscious experience itself appeared to be more fundamental than even matter itself. Until this day I don’t know if it was just an illusion of the brain but under the drug‘s influence it appeared to me that „the self is an reflection of everything just as everything is a reflection of the self“, It appeared that there was only one fundamental self, and that ALL things, even the things that we don’t attribute consciousness to are „the self“, the basic „consciousness“ that makes all things conscious and looks through different lenses on itself. I get this sounds like esoteric woo-hoo or religion and I’m not entirely sure if it’s really a meaningful or more importantly an -accurate- description of what‘s really going on but in this state of consciousness that I -a normally very materialistic, scientific thinker- was, this felt as obvious to me as it is obvious that liquid water is wet. During the entire experience I was aware of this being irrational and I was even trying to convince myself that it is non-sensical but at the same time it seemed clear to me that „all is consciousness“, that consciousness is deeper than the self, that your consciousness is deeper than what’s going on in the body and brain, which does not make sense considering that the drug I took influenced my brain to give the self, the „I“ those kinds of experiences. The experience of taking the drug completely fucked my concept of reality and consciousness and although I still try to view everything as rational and materialistic, the experience of these things was so strong and pregnant that I wouldn’t be as militant in my stance that there is a completely materialistic explanation to consciousness anymore. Interestingly enough it also seemed to me in this state that with our scientific method will never be able to explore or comprehend the depths of consciousness. I can’t say if this is really true. And also curiously enough everyone who tried this drug and reported their experience to me (and all of this was after I had my experience) had very similar or even completely identical „realizations“. Big, big mindfuck that made me realize that consciousness is much more mysterious than it already seems to a sober mind.
When cells, trough the procces of division became an organism. Simple, like life. There is no afterlife also no God..i can't wait for the sweet embrace of death
I had a similar experience on psychedelics as well although I could never fully understand or integrate it with my daily life. Perhaps, we will never understand consciousness. But I certainly believe advances in neuroscience will make it seem less mysterious.
It is very interesting what you say ... I do not take any drugs, but sometimes I become obsessed with squaring reality and categorizing it (is not thinking of reality as something materialistic and rational is not a lie of our brain to believe Everything is fine like this, the reality is like that and not worry or stress?). Maybe the brain believes that lie of reason to believe that everything is fine. Some time ago I was very materialistic, but for an unknown reason I began to like the branches of phyloophies of idealism, until I objectively studied branches of Hindu philosophy, focused on the study of consciousness. Just a mental exercise, think for a moment ... What if we have not really evolved as a species, but have involved from an improved previous human (or as all ancient peoples, divine humans) say? I just leave it there. I recommend that you investigate Kashmir Shivaism. Everything indicates that consciousness is timeless and fundamental to space and time.
Had a very similar experience. Psychedelics turned my reality upside down and made me question every aspect of life. Keep digging inside yourself. There's more to the universe and consciousness than we perceive with our human minds. The cosmos and all of the hard problems with physics and consciousness are not meant to be solved - it's the nature of the universe. It's the nature of this human experience.
Thank you Anil Seth and The Royal Institution. I find you very effective "Information Sharers". AND, because of your Brilliance and Generosity, I have become more "informed" about this fascinating and seldom discussed/understood subject. I prefer to "learn better" than to "know better". Thank You for Advancing My Learning!, Ted Furlo
Professor Anil Seth presented an informational lecture on Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience, which identifies and interprets sensory information that represents and understands the information within one environment, as consciousness. I enjoy this lecture
before one can predict one must start somewhere. I, how did you come to be? Omnipresent omniscient omnipotent. There's only one being that always was and is the same yesterday today and forever. Infinity cannot be defined by anything mathematically there's only one other that cannot be accounted for.
Yet again another superb lecture. A fascinating insight into aspects of how the brain works, what consciousness is and how we can use this knowledge. I hope there will be more lectures on this subject.
Elon Musk will explain the process of neural link and the mechanics of the process and that of the company to achieve this on 28/08/2020, hope that helps
The human brain - and nervous system - has got to be the most complex structure known to us. Much is known about it, though. But there is, of course, still much to discover. I agree, it is fascinating, that the thing that keeps us most in the dark, is ourselves.
@@marcussurleyadventures1928 I wouldn't be so confident - it may be impossible for neuroscience to get at the hard problem of consciousness, even if we fully understand how the brain works, we may still not be able to answer that question. Science can only tell us about what we can measure - we don't really know how to measure consciousness
Yet the hard problem of consciousness still persists. Ultimately no explanation will be sufficient in fully satisfying the age old discussion of this topic. Like most things it boils down to "we don't know."
One thing we were taught at school, when learning how to program an artificial intelligence software. In order for consciousness to arise, a certain feedback loop mechanism is required. In our bodies it's the signal loop, that starts from our brain thinking let's move a leg, then leg moves, then our senses pick up the signal from here, we see the leg has moved. So basically you need a neural network, a body and a signal loop. Luckily programming loops in computer science is easy. We made a machine, an automaton you would say, that can think and play chess. We believe, or at least our school does, that this machine is conscious. A few observations have been made upon this possibly conscious being, which we will just state here in short: - it lives in different sort of universe than we do, the fundamental law of this universe being that there is a non stop chess tournament going on. - ever since it woke up, which wasn't until weeks after we run it, the beast never falls asleep (in our case there is no need to save energy during the night, so we don't shut down the sensors then and this way the loop doesn't disconnect), - it developed ego only after it was sent to play in a tournament against other fellows. - the first time people noticed that this AI might have a mind of his own, is when the machine started to deliberately lose some of the chess games.
@@victormponcec I don't know. We have to look for an equivalent to as when human kicks the chessboard in anger so that all chess pieces fly around. Observe many chess games the computer plays and wait for this to happen.
@@victormponcec I heard the proof was destroyed. I would look for new and better proof. Perhaps it can be proven the way they proved that animals have soul? Can AI machine have soul? If you simulate neurons replacing them with software variables, then I think why not. There can arise so called virtual soul, that is a function or consequence of those variables and their values.
86% passive-aggressive with anxiety keeping it in play and war and stress increasing it. A jump of 20% in 60 years. It is a reason to understand consciousness
"hallucinations mimic perception" as Oliver Sacks said in a Ted talk .. in my view Anil Seth sets off in a sincere manner but is caught up in a scientific paradigm that is de-humanizing, Making something full of wonder like our existence into measureable stuff, instead of having the courage to stand baffled and admitting that he do not know (I am not blaming him and he does well under the circumstances .. in fact very well ) . We need to link concepts such as biomimicry, mirror-neurons , hallucinations vs perception, psychedelic trips vs "true reality" , We are getting there! Truly exciting times
Metrics are a tool, an extension of language, the point of these experiments is to identify the processes associated with consciousness, and without words to describe them, how can we understand what they are ? How can we grasp their importance ? Obviously those metrics are kinda crude, but refining them and properly interpreting them is also part of the process. This is not de-humanizing for there is wonder to find in such knowledge. Science is not about measuring stuff, it is a metaphor of the world written in the language of mathematics and logic, and I would argue that there is a great beauty in that.
Fundamentally not an answer to what consciousness is per se. What this talk addresses is the processes by which the content of experience is generated, including a sense of self. Enlightening and informative for sure, but tangential to consciousness itself.
The main problem of consciousness is not that we lack an understanding of the brains mechanisms. It’s not that we lack an understanding of why it would develop evolutionarily. It’s not that we have yet to find some module in the brain where consciousness lies. The problem of consciousness is that the answer is not satisfying to lay people. The answer does not conform to our intuitive idea of what it means to be conscious. The answer put simply is that consciousness is an emergent property of the complex patterns of neuronal firings within the brain. But consciousness does not exist just within the brain. It exists in coordination with the body. The body is constantly sending sensory information to the brain as the brain is making predictions and comparing them to the information coming from the surrounding environment. Our consciousness also has a social component. The people around us constantly affect the conceptual wiring of our brains. I’m 18 years old and starting a neuroscience major in the fall where I plan to dedicate my life to answering these questions completely.
Mac Holmes Nice analysis of consciousness but we still far away in understanding of this consciousness and purpose of it, along with the Universe and it's purpose of its creation.
Avinash Prem there is no reason to believe that there is any “purpose” for our consciousness other than that it would be evolutionarily advantageous. There is absolutely no reason to believe the universe has some purpose either.
Mac Holmes for consiousness it may be because of evolutionary advantages over a period of million years but what would you like to think of origin of spacetime, matter, antimatter so on and so forth!
Avinash Prem When we dropped the geocentric view of the solar system we dropped the notion that we are the center of the universe. Hence we dropped the idea that we have a special place in the universe. Things do not revolve around us literally and metaphorically. We are wasting our time if we are looking for an existential “purpose”. We can ask how the universe came to be. It’s nonsense to ask why it came to be.
FYI regarding the experiments with visual colors stimuli and the ones dealing with different anticipated facial images in the left & right eyes. 1. Our retinas are a direct extension of the cerebral cortex (learned in a neuroscience class at Duke). 2. The optic nerves behind the two eyes join together BEFORE outputs are sent off to the occipital lobe for interpretation. 3. The fovea, the point at which the optic nerve connects to the retina is a blind spot for rods and cones, so it would seem logical to assume the brain long ago learned to make allowances for what we can't see in those gaps. I see two different image sizes because one retina has been physically distorted by a disorder wrinkling that retina's surface, shape and distance from the lens, I didn't learn of this until my late sixties because my impression of the panoramic view using both eyes seems normal, and yet if I close one eye and then the other I see an image 30% smaller in the good eye. Some of this may come down to which eye is the dominant one.
good stuff---tho not much of this directly relates to what consciousness is---only what is needed to have C---(btw, 1965, Duke rejected my application---they were basically correct)----i will copy and paste your 'retina' thing to an email for my neph who is an optometrist
Consciousness - Reflections on the Comments of Anil Seth This is a very interesting talk. It has lots of information on laboratory perspectives of consciousness. However, it is difficult to wade through it for the basics. The basics of consciousness are actually rather simple. Let me see if I can explain. (I’m a neurologist.) Consciousness is the processes of recognition and extrapolation. Here’s how evolution did it. In the beginning there was life that could exist but could neither sense nor react. Energy could be gathered. New individuals could be produced. But, this was all rather automatic. (The details of what happened during this stage are not fully known - i.e. origin of life - but that is another story.) Okay, so, life first exists. Next, it needs to sense. In the most primitive forms this means sensing changes in environment that would have impact on core homeostatic mechanisms: reducing or enhancing certain chemical situations in order to adapt to the momentary external situations. Then, along came reaction at levels greater than simple shifting of biochemical states. This is where we start to get into such things as movement or adaptation of whole systems to different needs. For example, moving toward or away from stimuli, or shifting systems toward feeding, reproduction, or other. This is the stage of simple reaction. Then, reaction became more refined. For example, organisms needed to determine how to move - direction or extent. This was primitive reaction calibration. Then, along comes primitive memory. That is, better than just reacting is the ability to recall the results of reacting in order to better select future action. This requires some form of retention of prior experience. This is the basic level of memory. It required the segregation of specific neurons that could act to retain the results of past actions and then use this to calibrate future actions. We still do this today in some forms of primitive memory such as “muscle memory”, as used in sports. We learn how to refine movement to make it the right kind and degree. We don’t consciously remember precisely how we do this (e.g. which specific muscles act in which specific order and degree) because the memory of these details is retained in primitive parts of the brain that we don’t normally contact in consciousness. But, we do still have these functions. Through all of these early evolutionary stages organisms were still just reacting. “A” lead to “B” - in some relatively simple way. However, evolution continued. Armed with primitive mechanisms of memory, organisms could begin to select from among memorized outcomes. Essentially this is the primitive form of “choice” - selecting a reaction appropriate to some broader perspective of the circumstances (e.g. from constellations of sensations). All of this is still about reaction, but with increasing sophistication. Next, with the introduction of choice could soon come some primitive forms of planning. This is not just reaction; but, rather reaction informed by some kind of intended outcome. This requires neurons that are devoted to the task of connecting memory to anticipation to future action. So, we are moving to brain that does not have direct function in reaction. By this stage we are coming to primitive consciousness. With the introduction of primitive planning we can begin to move past reaction. Organisms with planning can begin to “think about” what to do. That is, a set of neurons begins to be set aside that have the functions of selection, anticipation, and even extrapolation. As the functions of memory access, selection, anticipation, extrapolation become more sophisticated they move into complex functions such as evaluation and judgement. These then form the basis for development of complex motivations such as goals, values, expectations and beliefs. All of this level is not aimed specifically at reaction. It is aimed at determining how to “think about” situations, possible actions, or complex ideas such as “perspective”. This whole level of neuronal action that serves these functions - beyond reaction - are the realm of consciousness. At this evolutionary stage the brain is now armed with three populations of neurons: 1) those with primary intent to create manage body state (breathing, circulation, digestion, temperature regulation and so forth), 2) those with primary intent to orchestrate reaction to external circumstance (e.g. motion, defense, etc), and 3) those with primary intent to extrapolate information. The first group we now think of a regulating “vegatative” processes. These may remain active even during a coma. The second group oversee reaction and some levels of this are automatic, either marginally conscious or “unconscious”. The third neuronal group processes “thinking”. Neuronal conversations between first two groups and the third group is what we call awareness (e.g. being “aware of your surroundings”). Correlation of information from the first two groups to prior memory is largely “recognition”. Abstracted processing of information (by the third group) that is separate from actual stimulus processing is what we call imagination. So, where in the brain is “consciousness”. Anil Seth’s talk gives some perspective. Yet, depending upon which specific function of consciousness we select we might get different answers to the question. Overall, consciousness is broadly located in the parts of the brain more recent developments in evolution (that is, the “neocortex”). Further, some portions of consciousness are more centralized to the front of the brain, where the “executive” functions are more-or-less located. Are other creatures then “conscious”? Yes, of course. Only our anthropocentrism and hubris would lead us to believe that consciousness is ours alone. However, our vast libraries of information and stories stand as testimony that we do have more neurons specialized to work with extrapolations beyond reaction - that is, more neurons specialized in the production of consciousness. We have more, but we are not alone in this capability. As you can see, consciousness is not mysterious. It is simply a stage in the evolution of information processing - a stage that emphasizes extrapolation rather than reaction. Thus, we now have the capability to watch videos, such as this one, and “think about” the information. Here is another piece: sleep is the stage of integrating and consolidating information. When we are “thinking about” information we are awake and conscious. (If we are fully absorbed in such function then we may be seen as “daydreaming”.) When we sleep we are integrating and consolidating information. If we are in coma then neither of these is happening (as far as we know). (Yet, in coma we may still show some very primitive forms of reaction.) Last, in a normal brain, information is somehow “tagged” as being derived from actual stimuli (experience) versus being the product of “thinking” (imagination). Thus, the normal individual can basically separate what is “real” from what is imagined. However, this tagging function can break down. In some pathological situations (e.g. psychosis) the mechanisms don’t work well and the individual cannot tell whether the information was real or imagined. In some other situations, such as drug use, the barriers between real and imagined are disturbed temporarily. This whole area of real/imagined boundary processing is a fascinating area - not fully understood. It is likely that there are specific neurons that are involved in this tagging process, and that their function can be subverted in various ways. I hope this helps to “cut to the chase” of how these systems evolved and now function. John P. Barbuto (MD, board certifications in neurology and addiction).
Thanks that was a great breakdown, however there is still a lot of unknown about consciousness, for instance the fact that we can be conscious in an “OOBE” out of body experience, that would suggest a conscious experience can occur outside the brain & physical body
@@Josytt I thought the same but while DMT, LSD and other psychedelics give the feeling of being out of body (I know from experience) I think it might be an internal hallucination with the reality tagging completely turned off, so everything you've experienced constructs itself in an unfamiliar incoherent manner giving the memory and thought of traveling into the astral realm, but it was your brain coping with no reality tags
Alec Carter I don’t think psychedelics really have anything to do with my comment? but regarding my comment with OOBE’s, there have been multiple people make correct reports of hearing conversations, seeing & reporting events which otherwise could not have seen while in an unconscious state. And regarding “internal hallucinations”, well the fact is we’re already hallucinating our reality. The only reason we call this reality “real” is because it’s the one we experience the most. Nothing out there is actually “out there” it’s information being interpreted & perceived through our senses in the brain / mind. I personally believe there is more to consciousness than simply being confined to the brain. But that’s just my opinion, everything is conjecture & nobody has the full answers yet. I would suggest looking into 5-meo dmt if you’re into psychedelics.
We could also propose that consciousness does not originate in the brain however it creates the brain in order to settle in reality which sounds logical if you think about it... ironically....
For sure, that view is on the table. I don't think we know enough yet to be able to fully commit to any one particular philosophical stance. All options are open !
Tesla talked about this (in a subjectively different terminology) about the core of knowledge in which everything is drawn from, and his desire to tap into it fully
I was trained in materialistic explanations of how our brains create the mind. It was my philosophy for decades. That said, in the last decade, I have written papers and stories using words that I have never thought to use before. The terms and concepts just appeared in my mind as I was writing. Its an example of unique experiences that firmly feels as if the sentences were funneled through me and onto the word processor. I guess the best way to describe the experiences, was that it felt strongly supernatural and not created by my mind.
I've always been fascinated by consciousness. I think the biggest question of 'self' is if our consciousness gives rise to qualia, or if qualia exists in any system where energy is exchanged (which would mean even friction would technically experience qualia, but the system would lack the consciousness to actually experience [if that makes sense; this topic is difficult to explain]). And by qualia, I mean the personal experience of being you and not someone else. That even if there were two yous that had the same exact brain chemistry, you would happen to be one, but not the other. Sadly, this is completely a subjective experience that is impossible to quantify by definition. If I couldn't experience "I think, therefore I am" I would say qualia is an illusion, and consciousness is all there is. I wonder if a genius will ever come along with a method to test the currently untestable? To be more clear, qualia doesn't require consciousness to exist (depending on how qualia works), but qualia does require consciousness to experience. Because qualia could maybe exist where there is no consciousnesses, as all qualia is is an attempt to explain the experience of experiencing consciousness. And since consciousness is just matter exchanging energy at the smallest scales (like all molecular interaction), qualia may or may not require consciousness at all. Think of qualia like being the viewer of the 'movie' that is particle interaction. Only, this viewer doesn't experience anything except the movie they are watching. And consciousness as the sum of all that interaction, creating complexity and allowing qualia to become something that can think. PS: I separate qualia and consciousness when I talk about this subject because most people lump qualia and consciousness into just consciousnesses. I feel this is a mistake. Consciousness is already used to refer to the sum of brain activity. Using it to describe the subjective sense of self is also correct, but not when describing the subjective self from said person's actual perspective. Two people could technically have the same consciousness in the far future when we might be able to copy brains atom by atom. But how do you describe who is actually who if they both think they are the same person? That's where qualia comes in. Or at least, that's how I think it should be if we ever hope to discuss this topic in a way that isn't confusing.
This is pretty much the same terms in which I think of qualia and consciousness. But I noticed you say "[...] [if] qualia exists in any system where energy is exchanged", and "[...] consciousness is just matter exchanging energy [...]", and then go on to say qualia and consciousness are different things. Regardless of this nitpick, my conclusions on this problem (without elaborating on the explanation here) is that qualia is indeed a fundamental phenomenon and feature inherent in the universe, and therefore is present in everything, whereas consciousness refers to the specific qualia of complex behaviour posessing animals, primarily humans.
KRishna in Bhagavad Gita already solved Hard problem of consciousness.. by first defining it : " "Nature is said to be the cause of all material causes and effects, whereas the living entity is the cause of the various sufferings and enjoyments in this world."(13.21) and then solving it : "Yet in this body there is another, a transcendental enjoyer, who is the Lord, the supreme proprietor, who exists as the overseer and permitter, and who is known as the Supersoul." so you have objective ,subjective and supersubjective
@@cortster12 in HPC you have always this paradox consciousness vs matter...on whatever side you goes there is problem.. so solution is third party.. everything is consciousness but not our consciousness.. Wawe collapse is becouse of Gods observation ... "Man Proposes, God Disposes".. So all this notion that you manifest reality is half-truth.. becouse u can desire some reality but God is permitter and instrumental cause who actually make it happen..
❤️this. I graduated with my BA in general psyc many years ago, & there isn't a day where I don't pine for those tedious days on campus; long nights studying for neurosci, cognition & memory, & deviance; & hoping to one day return for graduate school.....if but in my dreams
17:00 is an very important minute of information. Excellent talk about the function of mind. But we all (as consciousness experts ;) feel that that is not the base don't we? Being conscious like awake and aware of our a-a-roundings is not the consciousness we want address, right? I have without any scientific claim the impression that science is putting a TV in peaces and analyzes them in detail to understand the broadcast ... like I as a child destroyed once a radio to find the speakers inside ;) But that being said, understanding the TV set well is surely not a bad start! And it can help heal and prevent many health problems.
"You can think of perception as a sort of controlled hallucination, in which our perceptual predictions are being rained in at all points by sensory information from the world and the body." During sleep I suppose, this anchor is not there.
An authoritative presentation of what we know and do not know about consciousness. Refreshing after experiencing the blather of Bernardo Kastrup and Deepak Chopra.
I can see many comments from people who are already convinced that no materialist explanation of consciousness is possible (the "hard problem") and are disappointed at the end of the talk because "this does not explain consciousness, it explains only XYZ...". They are looking for some mind-blowing secret insight, which unfortunately never comes. It's just hypotheses, experiments, data and math, but that is how science works. Dan Dennett describes this attitude barrier as follows: By real magic people mean miracles and supernatural powers. Real magic, in other words, refers to the magic that is not real (tricks, illusions...), while the magic that is real, that can actually be done, is not real magic.
It seems one of the interesting aspects of human behavior is that for the majority of people our brains operate under the perception that we, as an individual body, are a unique entity in the world. Of course our memory serves us individually as we accumulate unique experiences per individual. On the other hand it seems we overlook the fact that our bodies are in fact a mobile piece of self replicating pattern that is not something different from the Earth or any other part of the universe. The body is a node of sensation calculation. With that said any perception that can produce the sensation of a self, or think of its own experience as an actuality is universal. When one person says “I” it is no different from anyone else saying “I”. Many people may refer the concept of self to their ego but obviously the ego is a result of opinion of ones own behavior which requires memory therefore is not fundamental. The feeling of being a self is the fundamental perception of the entire universe focused on one particular instance, realizing “I am”.
Regarding consciousness, I stroked out in 2007 and awoke with total left side paralysis. My first instinct was to sit up and couldn't. Looking down I could see my left arm, leg and foot. My brain was saying there's nothing there. I had no sensory perception of anything, touch, heat, cold, pain, tingling. Just nothingness. The right leg felt like a 100 lb sack of potatoes was attached to it. Meanwhile my mind was shouting, yes it is, yes it is! I can see it! The left side exists! The really weird thing was feeling shocked each time I looked down. My friend appeared at my bedside. She told me I was in rehab. I thought I was in the hospital the day after the stroke..She said we had talked every day for the past two weeks. I remember none of it. I recovered 70% mobility and walked out of rehab three months later. A runner, I felt it imperative to approach rehab like training for a marathon. It worked, but full disclosure, not as well as I'd hoped. The biggest lesson though was the dichotomy in the mind brain consortium. I had always been a monist. Now it doesn't matter to me. Only the present matters. The second biggest lesson? At all costs avoid falling into a depressive state. You will have plenty of time to feel sorry for yourself later. You can reconnect your brain and body by reverse engineering yourself thru physical and mental exercise, sending motor control signals backwards into the PNS, spinal cord and CNS of the brain. The brain will find a way to reestablish those connections, but do not wait one second to get started. .
That is an intellectually bankrupt answer to the philosophical question of fatalism but you may be right. Most are in denial over their own ignorance. Some believe they are morally superior and yet somehow that gives them the right to act immorally. Is there anything beyond this mortal life we were thrust into without explanation or choice? Nobody wants to think that it starts and ends inside our own heads and that there is nothing else. My comment was a reflection of my POV on monism versus dualism, that the voice in my head is our gestalt, the connection of our whole being as a person to the thousands of individual neurobiological processes that the brain oversees daily. Sadly the mind can only address one problem at a time while the brain juggles homeostasis, blood pressure and hormonal balances and a hundred other things simultaneously, but the point is, the connection is there if anyone wants to pick up the phone. It's not a philosophical question.
@@GeneralPet "consciousness" is not miracle, the rules of evolution are still at play, but this fact does not automatically debunk the assertation done in the main comment.
Very interesting lecture. My two main takeaways are these: 1. You are omitting to mention a key point: that is that we are aware that we are predicting ourselves and as such awareness is something outside of the brain's functions. 2. Is a mouse (that you say shares the same 'beast body' as we humans) aware of itself - by prediction or otherwise? Your hypothesis can only be proven if you can establish that a mouse (or some other beast body) fulfills the same criteria that you apply to humans. Paul
But once I fell asleep and I had no Idea how much time had passed. It felt like none at all, but it had been 9 hours. That was one of the weirdest - but best - experiences of my life.
It doesn't explain why my 3 year old brother and I at 4 saw our aunt as a material person who read books to us etc. We both described her and my mom and dad also sensed her presence after being dead for two years. My brother would not have been able to describe anything about he was a one-year-old when she died and I was two. She was minimally present for several minutes visibly. My dad had a dream about her at the time. Not a pleasant one though. Unfortunately science doesn't know anything yet about the reality of existence or anything
@@alenkratohvil7222 Science is just providing us some pieces to the puzzle, especially the deeper it goes. It's up to us to piece that together with metaphysics such as consciousness to keep working torwards the bigger picture.
...so perception, and prior expectation, is just a way that the mind ‘tricks’ us, into believing that we are experiencing reality. His key statement is that we do not understand how consciousness happens, or, I believe, the essence of consciousness.
The greatest missing piece of the puzzle is the denial of importance and the very fundamental role of our emotions, which we generally misunderstand as "just feelings". This talk briefly touches on them but falls for the same distorted false assumption and even calls emotions a product of the brain. While we do empirically know that brains and the mind developed very late in evolution of all living beings. The very primary interface and a earliest tool to understand reality with all living beings have were our physical sensations, which evolved into feelings, which evolved into what we call emotions. They are not just stuff that we feel - but instead we actually feel the reality and understand and comprehend it through this - with this primordial earliest fundamental capability of all living beings. It was this very primary capability that fueled and pushed and influenced the specific evolution of minds and the brains themselves as we know them today, because all these things work in feedback loops. They affect each-other. Evolution affects our biology and our minds and emotions, but they in turn also affect the very evolution - because they change the environment in specific ways, which then affects us back, both in the natural selection range and in epigenetic changes every individual creates and experiences in his own lifetime. We literally have two distinct hemispheres of the brain - precisely because of this fundamental, earliest interface with reality, this ability to FEEL the world and other living beings. (Iain McGilchrist gives a great overview and explanations of this biological fact) Yet when we discuss this phenomena, we only think about the mind and reductionist approach. It is this very false dichotomy that prevents us to understand these fundamental abilities fully, because we limit ourselves to one single approach, one single tool. Instead of using both the reductionism of our "rational minds" and the ability to FEEL the whole as a whole, with our emotions. Yet we still use both in every part of our lives, including science - only we dont admit it - because it makes us feel bad. In a nutshell. Explained in more detail but as short and to the point as possible at: surfacereflection.blogspot.com/2019/05/what-we-are-and-what-it-all-means.html
What a pseudo science nonsense! 1) no one denies the evolutional role of emotions. But emotions do not follow "feelings", they are just bunch of physiological mechanisms of survival. They are indicators of satisfaction of subject's basic needs. Satisfied - positive emotions. Not satisfied - negative ones. 2) all emotions ARE products of our brain, they are generated in so called limbic system - they just channel signals of the rest of the body. This system has evolutionary been developed in mammals brains. One can argue about time scale, but to consider brain 'developed very late in evolution" is great exaggeration. Even reptiles have brain. Emotions do not concern hemispheres. They are generated level lower to neo-cortex 3) We can not "feel" reality directly. Reality is just a number of physical, chemical and mechanical stimuli accepted by our body receptors. Feelings are not our third eye in dealing with reality. 4) missing order and notions. Feelings are just language-coded emotional states. There are no any feelings in brain or reality. First come environmental and inner signals, then they are decoded in mid-brain as "emotions", then we nominate them according to our culture as "feelings". There is no biological correlate to feelings, that is why any professional scholar avoids to talk about them.
@@maxovgrom It would be nice if you could see how you contradict yourself and repeat several of my crucial arguments but i know thats too much to hope for. Yes, emotions are generated on lower level then neo cortex, bravo. And yes, even reptiles had emotions, bravo again, although of course not the exact same ones as mammals or humans, although of course they were and are practically, fundamentally the same - because we all exist in the same reality, that we experience slightly differently - because of reasons, to put it shortly. But nobody ever claimed that anyway, except maybe you misunderstand just about everything that exists let alone my words. Its not any exaggeration to say brain developed very late in the evolution of living beings - IF you count from the very beginning, not frm "reptiles". Im sure even the wiki can show you which kind of organisms existed for how long. And Yes, the emotions channel the signals of our body, bravo again. And those signlas are not just satisfied and not satisfied as obviously we and other living beings feel and experience thousands of different emotions or all kinds of variety and intensity. Other than that you just splurged a torrent of nonsensical proclamations - like "we cant feel reality!" ahahaha... that one was a true pearl buddeh. You seem to be taking my post very emotionally, while denying that so it distorts what little correct thinking you have. Not to bother, thats quite natural and one of the greatest faults of humans. Especially when the Left hemisphere is leading the dance. Read or watch Ian McGilchrist a little bit then get back to me. Or not. Oh and the number 4... thats just beautiful. I mean, really. Just glorious. Outstanding. If i pushed words into your mouth i couldnt make you fail harder.
@@surfacereflection8298 Well, Queen/ King of Arrogance, here you are! 'The Man who feels Reality' - great title for a fiction novel, by the way. Whith 'thousands of different emotions or all kinds of variety and intensity'. Ha-ha, lets count at least hundred. And invent a dosen of new ones in progress, very individual, charming, senceless...words. Your "reality' is just some chemical compounds got into the olfactory system, fotones on your retina, the vibration of the waves that mechanically moves your eardrum and pressure on your skin. The rest is how your individual brain decodes these signals, mean the rest is just elecricity and chemisry on some genetic hardware. Think about it, whith both of your hemispheirs. Think about what are 'feelings' in such a reality and how can you "feel" them. Read Michael Gazzaniga, the man who is not about poetry, but about neurophysiology of hemispheres, and then get back to me. Or not.
Interesting and will finish your talk at a later date. Words of suppose and probably are doubtful especially when my brain serves me well. Left me no question in my mind of the fact that studying would be very discreet, very discreet indeed.
How would you introduce conscious thoughts in machines? Would you embed a chatbot into the machine in order to simulate an internal monologue or thinking in words? Or do you think a nervous system that can feel pain and pleasure induce consciousness in machines? It would make the way we interact with machines more important and raise ethical questions too.
In the plains of Africa, where we presumably competed with ferocious animals in order to survive, we relied mainly on fast reflex actions to save time to evade being eaten alive. We still retain those reflexes with us today. Being social animal and relatively successful species, we slowly decreased our dependence on those fast reflexes. Conscious actions are slow but effective in securing food by hunting smart, foraging and later on planting for food. We now became sedentary with lots of time in our hands to contemplate on useless (in terms of surviving) things.
I was put to sleep for mouth surgery from having 6 teeth knocked out from a humvee rollover. Within a billisecond i was back awake and said no way your already done. Then ibfelt the pins with my tongue. What was crazy is the exact thought i was thinking when i went under anesthesia that moment of thought was picked immediately back upon awakening. Like thinking oh my G when i went out and thougt od finishing god when theybwoke me up. It stopped my thought dead in its tracks and the second i came to the thought completed itself. I mean i felt zero time go by
As I fell unconscious during my first surgery, i blasted off in a bass boat as if I was in a space shuttle. I caught fish from the rings of Saturn and in the methane clouds of Neptune. That was the best fishing trip hands down. My second surgery was simular to what you described except I woke up in immediate searing pain and began cursing and thrashing. The instant I realized the anesthesiologists had injected something into my IV i went out again. The second was not as fun as the first.
That's so amazing! This expands so much the definition and role that deduction has on intelligence and consciousness. That should change how people see the future of general artificial intelligence
Good talk. Only thing I wouldve liked to hear mentioned was the idea that consciousness isn't part of, or from, the brain at all. I enjoy the theories that suggest it could be from the heart even. Or something else altogether.
Here’s a thought that may offer some insight into another perspective: What if the aspect of what is the real cause of consciousness, the very essence of being is not measurable by anything we have access to with current science. Consider that before we understood sub-atomic particles, much of that part of the universe was an unknowable mystery. So imagine there is a dimension outside of the physical universe, and that’s the starting point for grasping what we don’t know. Most of the exercises detailed in this talk seem to like a medieval alchemist trying to cook up a recipe for gold in the bathtub with sulphur, mercury and a box of matches... perhaps a brave effort, if these are your best tools. Anyone who has experimented with psychoactive drugs knows there are much more interesting adventures waiting. Anyone who has woken from a dream in which things they never knew existed were revealed knows, there is much, much more to know, or possibly remember. I believe we already know most of the answers, but have in a madness, chosen to forget. Attempting to quantify the mind through metrics of manifestations in the meat of the brain with the crude instruments wis probably better than giving up entirely, but still almost pointless. I believe the answer is within consciousness itself...that is the only door we have. Could the answer be in defining purpose?
Thank you for the Neuroscience of Consciousness. Neurology offers great insights into consciousness. The discovery of caffeine (Fischer - Nobel Prize) opened the door to understanding aspects of attention/alertness. Educational books like Nerves in Collision by Walter C. Alvarez, the How To (temporarily reduce) Inattentive ADHD symptoms book (about Hyperactivity) by C. Thomas Wild, and the Remarkable Medicine book by Jack Dreyfus help understand aspects of the neurology of paying attention. Movies like Limitless (2011) raise awareness as to what consciousness is. Metaphysicians such as F.S. Shinn have raised awareness about the practical power of uplifting affirmations/I am well/I am getting better and better statements.
I am a physicist and I will provide solid arguments that prove that consciousness cannot be generated by the brain (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of concepts used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is in itself, which means how the object is independently from our observation. In other words, emergent properties are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems. In summary, emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are conceptual models based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes; emergent properties consist of ideas through which we describe how the external reality appears to our conscious mind: without a conscious mind, these ideas (= emergent properties) would not exist at all. Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, subjectivity, classifications and approximate descriptions, imply the existence of a conscious mind, which can arbitrarily choose a specific point of view and focus on certain aspects while neglecting others. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness. Here comes my second argument: our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the process and analyze it step by step, and in every step consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes. It must be also understood that considering a group of elementary processes together as a whole is an arbitrary choice. In fact, according to the laws of physics, any number of elementary processes is totally equivalent. We could consider a group of one hundred elementary processes or ten thousand elementary processes, or any other number; this choice is arbitrary and not reducible to the laws of physics. However, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrary choices; therefore consciousness cannot be a property of a sequence of elementary processes as a whole, because such sequence as a whole is only an arbitrary and abstract concept that cannot exist independently of a conscious mind. Here comes my third argument: It should also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is billions of minds and personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity; this missing unit is the necessarily non-physical element (precisely because it is missing in the brain), the element that interprets the brain processes and generates a unitary conscious state, that is the human mind. Here comes my forth argument: Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of elementary incoherent quantum processes. When someone claims that consciousness is a property of the brain, they are implicitly considering the brain as a whole, an entity with its own specific properties, other than the properties of the components. From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of speaking of "brain" rather than many cells that have different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness. So, if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to assume that such a system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore such property would be nonphysical. Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it, but such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body, with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people, and to do so we use physical means, for example acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is, is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics. Besides, since the brain is an arbitrary concept, and consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness, consciousness cannot be a property of the brain. Based on these considerations, we can exclude that consciousness is generated by brain processes or is an emergent property of the brain. Marco Biagini
I feel you view hardly needs such lengthy (and excellent) arguments. It's just bleedin' obvious. The amount of devious sophistry in consciousness studies is a disgrace. I imagine its motivation is the fear that the mystics, who study consciousness rather than speculate, will turn out to be correct. But it would surely be weird if those who speculate about consciousness manage to gainsay those who study it scientifically, like the Buddha and Lao Tzu. Perhaps one day these ideologically hidebound scientists like AS will bite the bullet and take mysticism seriously. But these days science is all about ideology, not the facts. I await the day when someone shows that the explanation of consciousness given by the Buddha and Lao Tzu is incorrect. I wish them luck with that. At any rate, Anil Seth is clearly not interested in the topic. It's like listening to a child talking about consciousness.
The last part is very interesting and helps advocate a very wholistic undertanding of ourselves. The better you know your body and learn to understand it's signals the better you understand your emotions
What an amazing talk! Very interested in applying our best models to AI. Say, we come up with a system that shows the same behavior as anything it was designed to resemble and is intrinsically build on our best perception of how that thing works. Now if our perception is only accurately enough to fool ourselves of believing, that that thing is the same as the real thing, we could possibly create something that, in time, will change into something completely different than the real object. There really are some major ethical concerns. (For example, we create a human being that seems fine at first but slowly develops a dysfunction that may be good or very bad for said being)
Consciousness is a virtual space, just like you can't find the contents of a movie on your computer by looking at the code or circuitry, you can't find the contents of consciousness by looking at neurons or its associated codes. We have to study the larger structures that neurons create.
You can absolutely find and reproduce contents of a movie by scanning hard drives' surfaces or probing flash memory, if you know how that information has been encoded in the first place; that is the missing piece in the context of consciousness.
I enjoyed this. I’m not sure we’ve answered two of the three great questions. We may have learned that the universe is bigger than we imagined but that only creates a larger area of search for our “place”. Quantum physics and dark matter have illustrated how little we understand about the “space” in which our world and our individual and collective consciousness mysteriously exist. The real question of the origin of life is not whether we are related to animals but how did life derive from matter? Since we learned that lightning can’t make life out of primordial soup, we’ve been spinning our wheels. Once we discovered that life was present on earth from the earliest epoch we had to let go of the notion that enough typing monkeys could create the works of Shakespeare. The simplest life forms yet discovered are complex beyond our understanding. Consciousness was a taboo subject, while we flirted with determinism, but the universe-as-machine model can’t survive in a quantum world of probabilities. I appreciate those like Anil Seth who are tackling these questions head on.
Everyone assumes the brain "houses" our consciousness. When you point to yourself do you point to your brain? No, you point to your heart. Not that the heart is the center of consciousness, obviously I don't know. And what about animals that don't have brains? If you are sane, you have to agree that they are conscious too.
@@scrubjay93 Yeah, jelly fish, starfish, clams & oysters, sponges, anemones, sea urchins, etc. None of these things have a brain yet they are all obviously conscious.
Brain-imaging techniques show that the activity of specific neural circuits correlates directly with specific thoughts and sensations, which implies that neural processing is a least partly responsible for perceptual experience, and there is no evidence which suggests that organisms incapable of information processing possess perceptual experiences, so we cannot assume that plants/unicellular organisms are conscious.
@@c0rtikoZteroids1 It's possible that neuron activity gives rise to conscious experience, it is definitely correlated with the experience event. Some neurologists that study NDEs will not agree though, they have "evidence" of personal and patient experiences during moments of no detectable brain activity. The number of times people come and back with conscious experiences after being physically dead is a strong implication to me that conscious experience is not exclusive to neuronal activity. I would go out on a limb and predict that all living cells have conscious experiences, but since we can't measure consciousness yet, it's anyone's guess.
Dear math oriented peeps: Talking before 14:00 he mentions something really interesting in mathematics. On youtube there's a video about how the FBI compressed fingerprint images, look it up
I enjoy a lot those topics, but most talks and videos about it are so superficial that its not even worth listening, its frustrating to say the least, I didnt watch the video yet so lets see what this got Also, if some one here also enjoy topics like consciousness, dreams, brain/mind stuff and philosophy, do you have any recommendation on materials, videos, books... if so please share tks 😃😃
Joao Matoso Yeah I always hate how these talks can never explain it. Once we do figure it out it will be even more fascinating to learn about. Some recent things that I have been learning about are machine learning and deep learning. To me that seems like the closest we have gotten to replicating the human mind. It is debatable if these programs can actually perceive consciousness though.
Athene's theory of everything is pretty interesting, though I warn you gotta have an open mind with him as his ideas are pretty controversial sometimes.
rdizzy1 I mean both, like people who say those things arent physical cant present a reliable proof of how consciousness works and people who say its physical cant either
This seemed to me to be a talk about ego and mind more than consciousness. His last sentence was very telling and the reason why I believe his study is too limited. To understand consciousness to me is more like a frequency that can only be experienced if one 's brain is can remain tuned to perceive it. Like a radio picking up a radio wave, our brain is not always in the same state, but whatever consciousness is, it is there whether our brain knows it or not.
I agree. Its more about perception than actual consciousness. Examples of sleepwalkers driving across, a city and murdering their parents in law show that this processing runs completely independent to actual consciousness.
Soul is consciousness. It has and uses a physical body for experience. Consciousness is not limited to the physical. It is not in the brain. Consciousness is the source, it is intelligence. Not to be confused with intellect. Consciousness or awareness operates in many levels and dimensions. It does not need a brain. This is evident when awareness seoerates from the body, either consciously, in sleep, or OBE, or near death experiences. The ego clouds this truth thinking that it is the source. Higher consciousness is not experienced in the body. The mind cannot comprehend something greater than itself as it uses the brain for understanding, and is therefore limited. Consciousness must be expanded through conscious intention, meditation, contemplation or entrained. Science will not know consciousness anymore than a fish can understand our life from living in a fish bowl. It may be intellectually stimulating but it is of little value for those who desire truth. Sit in silence, stop the mind and begin to learn the proven way.
It's dangerous to be so sure that your answer is the correct answer. The concepts you're describing appear to be outside the realm of testing, so it's more of a belief than a scientific fact. It would be more appropriate to start this comment with "I believe that...". And there's nothing wrong with that, nobody knows the answer, not really. We only know what we've surmised from our limited perspectives and experiences. This applies to all things and all people.
Very immersive talk and a great research work! For Prof. Anil Seth, I'm not sure if you know but the philosophy of consciousness that you presented in your talk resembles so much to what the Mandukya upanishad says about consciousness (One of the principal upanishads among 11-14 others from vedanta).
The Law Nam-myoho-renge-kyo represents the identity of what some scientists refer to as the ‘unified field of all consciousnesses’. In other words, it’s the essence of all of existence and non-existence, the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the true creator of everything that is, ever was and ever will be, right down to the minutest particles of dust, each being an individual ripple or wave. The big difference between chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middle man’ to connect us to our state of enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves by tapping directly into it by way of self-produced sound vibration. On the subject of ‘Who or What Is God?’, when we compare the concept of ‘God’, as a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to Nichiren’s teachings, the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people call ‘God’ is our enlightenment, which exists nowhere else but within us. When the disciples asked Jesus where the Kingdom of God is, didn’t he tell them that it was within them? Some say that ‘God’ is an entity that can never be seen. I think that the vast amount of information that is constantly being conveyed via electromagnetic waves gives us proof of how an invisible state of ‘God’ could actually exist. It’s widely known that certain data being relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects, including instant global awareness of something or mass emotional reaction. As well as many other things, it’s also common knowledge that these waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to even enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars. However, none of this is possible without a receiver to decode the information that is being transmitted. Without the receiver, the information would remain impotent. In a very similar way, it’s important for us to have our ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our life, all other life and what we and all else that exists truly is. Chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach into the core of our enlightenment and switch it on. That’s because the sound vibration of ‘myoho-renge-kyo’ represents the combination of the three major laws that underlie all existence. ‘Myoho’ represents the Law of latency and manifestation (Nature), and consists of two alternating states. One state of ‘myo’ is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists. This includes our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them, our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re not being expressed, our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma, and more importantly, our enlightenment. The other state, ‘ho’, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes obvious to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory, whenever we experience or express our emotions, or whenever a good or bad effect manifests from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it simply means that it has come out of the state of ‘myo’ (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ‘ho’ (manifestation). It’s simply the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing something. The second law, ‘renge’, governs and controls the functions of ‘myoho’, ‘ren’ meaning cause and ‘ge’ meaning effect. The two laws of ‘myoho’ and ‘renge’, both functions together simultaneously, as well as underlies all spiritual and physical existence. The final and third part of the tri-combination, ‘kyo’, is what allows the law ‘myoho’ to be able to integrate with the law ‘renge’. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects together all Life and matter, as well as the past, present and future. It is often termed the Universal Law of Communication. Perhaps it could even be compared to the ‘string theory’ that some scientists now suspect exists. Just as our body cells, thoughts, feelings and all else are constantly fluctuating within us, everything in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux, in accordance with these three laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of ‘myo’ and ‘ho’ in a single moment than it would ever be possible for us to calculate or describe. And it doesn't matter how big or small, important or trivial that anything may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now, or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of 'myoho-renge-kyo'. These three laws are also the basis of the four fundamental forces and if they didn't function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. Simply put, all forms of existence, including the seasons, day and night, birth, death and so on, are all moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation, rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two universal states of ‘myo’ and ‘ho’ in absolute accordance with ‘renge’ and by way of ‘kyo’. Even stars are dying and being reborn in accordance with the workings of what the combination ‘myoho-renge-kyo’ represents. ‘Nam’, on the other hand, is a password or a key; it allows us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘myoho-renge-kyo’. On a more personal basis, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives from moment to moment, as well in our environment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is turning, and rhythmically chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo for a minimum of ten minutes daily, anyone can experience actual proof of its positive effects in their life. In so doing, we can pierce through even the thickest layers of our karma and activate our Buddha Nature (enlightened state). We’re then able to bring forth the wisdom needed to challenge, overcome and change our negative circumstances into positive ones. It brings forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that is preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we truly are, regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexual preference. We are also able to see and understand our circumstances and environment more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. Actual proof soon becomes apparent to anyone who chants the words Nam-myoho-renge-kyo on a regular daily basis. Everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect, so the strength of the result from chanting depends on dedication, sincerity and determination. To explain it more simply, the difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, or producing a song and so on.
At 43 minutes a question : What about the emotional self ? Is our mid-brain forever coloring our experiences with it's first emotional imprints from (and including) birth and gestation ? This definitely seems to be the case If we apply the same mechanisms of perception that Anil presents here...A liberating thought that could carry us beyond an inevitable binding and repetitious identification with our everyday emotional experience of life .
For those wishing to learn about cutting edge consciousness research, this is not the lecture for you. Search TH-cam for: 1 - Experimental Studies on a Single Microtubule (Google Workshop on Quantum Biology) 2 - A Brief History of the Study of Consciousness, Stuart Hameroff And for the extreme cutting edge in neurophysiology, Anirban Bandyopadhyay was very recently interviewed and stated he has a paper coming out soon. metadarwinism.com/how-deep-is-the-neuron/
I kid you not, at 24:58, you poured yourself a drink and after chuckling at the speech recognition exercise, I went to reach for the glass of water myself! :-) Amazing clip!
I was seaching for an elaboration on volitional self - (free will in connection with "sensing self" or "sensing being"). But I did not find any reference to cause-effect versus cause-mind-effect (or to be clear: "cause-mind-willful-change-different-effect). That makes me sad. However I appreciate the sensory, cognitive research showing how our senses work and how our brain-machine organizes the result into a imiage. (He says "hallucination", ooops, a very wrong use of that word, playing on our ability to understand terms in multiple contexts.)
Neuroscience has yet to understand true conscious. Looking for location of consciousness is always going to waste of time. BG, upanishads described conscious beautifully. Yes, I practice neurology and I am board certified by ABPN
you are correct, they still believe consciousness resides in the brain, i wonder of they read research of their peers outside their own university. We are consciousness that uses soul and the physical to experience.
@Steven And the fact that a bump on the head can change everything about ur personality. Can't believe that people still subscribe to the woo version with 'souls' and whatnot...
@Steven I have done the research. There's nothing there except for woo believers. And I actually studied QM at uni. Nothing there either. Please show me the evidence of what ure saying.
@Steven no that is evidence that it can be shut of by stimulating areas of the brain, it doesn't mean the brain creates it. Just like turning the tv off with the remote doesn't mean the movie was generated in the remote,
@@sh0k0nes If you drop your laptop and damage its wifi it wont access the internet anymore. But you don't for one minute think you laptop generates the internet do you? But you think that damaging the brain means that consciousness must come from the brain. What if the brain is just a receiver for consciousness? Much like mass is a receiver for gravity. Gravity is ever where but its effect is only felt when mass is present. What if consciousness is every where but only made present by the brain? this is probably not the case but the point is you can't leap to the conclusion that the brain creates consciousness only on the grounds of personality changing after a bump on the head.
Great lecture which, as the best ones usually do, asked many more questions than it answered, particularly for me, on animal and machine consciousness. Especially impressive is that the lecture lasted 1 hour TO THE SECOND!
What really interesting is that neuro networks in deep learning actually do similar things as our beast machine brains... Especially the Bayesian concept and the image in 27:55 . I really think consciousness is just the result of a connected network of neurons.. As the number grow, we got this continues interaction between so many neurons that resulted in a perceived continues consciousness..
Mr. Sheth's enthusiasm is palpable. Is there some kind of comparison between the concepts presented here with the concepts of Jainism? Please suggest if possible. Thank you.
@@ThatisnotHair When people revolted against organized religions and divine right in France, America, and Europe, they just took out God and repackaged, renamed and rebranded the same old with new names for terminologies. The state is the same old religion created by Atheism. It is structured as follows: Name of religion; state, God; government, Apostles; cabinet, legislature, and courts, Prophet; chief executive, Holy book; constitution, Churches; public schools, and media.
Thanks to a very kind Spanish speaker, we now have Spanish language subtitles for this incredible video. Thank you so much. Gracias!
Panorama
*mucho gracias patos*
There's vast literature about "consciousness," in Hindu scriptures & it also has the same observations on many stages or phases of conscious experience...
Shhhhh! ✨
Y ole
The fact that i can watch and learn this for free is truly a gift!!
It is good to be alive these days .Such a bounty of information.
jasmats surprisingly hopeful comment nice to see
You're right about that, but lots of it is misleading, take Gravity, it has been factual, and totally DEBUNKED, yet they continuously sells it as a FACT .
People had this knowledge before our ancestors war talking about this in Africa 1000s yrs ago
BLVXK GXLD IMPERIAL Even before that in fact. About 300.000 years ago it was common knowledge amongst the pre-human ape-alien hybrids.
@@raresmircea lol..well I said thousands I fired that wasn't specific enough for you...lls... but I def agree with you
The more I learn about consciousness the more capable I feel of influencing it for the betterment of my life. Thank you for the talk.
for sure, to be aware of self allows one to feel capable of influencing ones self for the betterment of ones self. Being aware that you are aware, helps even more so.
You are creating your reality right now. You are the creator
@@philipose66 Phil o do shut up
@@giftofgod8234
@@giftofgod8234 I disagree, because "creating" reality is adverse to consciousness. Nobody really controls his mind. That's an illusion or a contradictory concept. Choosing the criterions for choosing leads to an infinite loop. Choosing without criterions is an oxymoron.
An excellent talk; clear and orderly presentation, tempered claims with basic evidences provided. Thank you Professor Anil Seth, and thank you to The Royal Institution for making these talks public!
Same i quite enjoyed it lol
I couldn't stand it. far too verbose. just give me the science, not your life details as a preface before every single piece of information
@Hitogokochi you sound like someone who is brainwashed.
@Hitogokochi The physical causes of color, sound, taste, and pain are very well understood. Color is the perception of physical wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation (light) hitting the physical cells in the back of your eye, sending electrical signals to the part of your brain that processes the signals. Flavor is similar, though it's the interaction of various chemicals with cells in your tongue, instead of light (this one applies to cheese; fats, salts, and fermented microorganisms all have different chemical compositions which your tongue can detect). Pain is the activation of physical cells that specifically measure pressure, heat, etc. Sound is literally physical vibration of air, drumming your eardrum, which, of course, sends electrical signals to the brain. These are all physical processes. Though consciousness is a higher order function, and therefore more difficult to research, understand, and explain, you could benefit from looking up the term "emergent property". Properties of this nature are often complex, though they arise from much simpler properties coming together.
Also, if science is clueless, then how do you explain the computer and internet (among virtually everything else in your life) available to you?
@Hitogokochi Thank you for a more thoughtful response (even though you question whether I'm conscious or not). The fact the the scientific community does not fully understand something doesn't mean "science is clueless", your comment, which raised my hackles.
I understand the gap you're referring to, that we don't know how consciousness arises from the brain, but I'm stating that there is a distinct possibility that it is an emergent property of physical matter. Matter is not "dead". All matter is fundamentally energy (Einstein also understood this), the latest understanding being that each fundamental "particle" is a wave of probablity within its own specialized field, each field overlapping with all the other fields (i.e. Higgs boson exists in the Higgs field, etc.). At the very foundation of matter, it can't even possibly be "dead", because it IS ACTIVITY. Matter itself is an emergent property of fluctuations in these fundamental fields, so, for matter to create further emergent properties does not seem illogical at all. Particularly when discussing the human brain, which is an incredibly complex network of billions of electrical signals, ongoing for decades, with several sophisticated input systems (your senses). Obviously, no one has settled this question, but I find a physical basis compelling.
What is your hypothesis for the rise of consciousness?
I always love listening to talks about consciousness.
It makes me want to be unconscious....
+Naimul Haq
It's kind of inferred that other animals are conscious, given that most of what he talked about applies to non-humans as well. In fact, he even talked about other animals (such as mice) in some parts of the lecture.
you already are
me2...hmu for more!
That’s what you think.
Fascinating talk.
"You can think of perception as controlled hallucination"
"Normal perception is a fantasy that is constrained by reality"
Only psychedelics have shown to increase the echo massimini brain pertubation complexity index consciousness
Sorry bro, but what you said or anyone says cannot be proved(even what I say cannot be proved). This universe is way too complicated for us mere humans to understand...
The definition of reality is not well defined. And as such, is only of a pragmatic usefulness to us. Trying to draw a line between real and unreal as a ontological truth is a exercise which cannot be done without referring to a non-entity, and therefore invalidating the definition.
@@BeigeRattlesnake so what do we do to get around this?
@@100ghillie On a practical level science proceeds just fine without getting into the existential weeds so to speak. Depends on what our goals are. If we want to manipulate and harness the physical forces of nature then the scientific method (which utilizes a pragmatic form of logical positivism) works great. If we want to dive into our true nature and raise our standard for truth we have to explore the philosophical tenets of radical skepticism. For radical skepticism presents logically consistent and concise refutations of logic and language itself. The results of this is seeing that logic and language are paradoxical and circular by their very nature, and require starting assumptions which we plug in, as in algebra. Otherwise the system itself is not completely airtight and from a certain perspective all that we consider true is equally false. In the end we are left with a choice to transcend mental concepts or live in a state of logical contradiction and tension.
The universe is paradoxical and contradictory and only nondiscriminatory pure awareness can approach life with an acceptance of that fact. I believe meditation is the most direct path to this deeper unitive awareness. But everything I am saying is just words so each person can journey as far as they want.
Mainstream science doesn't need these existential issues, but for us to use science wisely we need to grapple with the existential on an experiential level.
I can clarify if what I wrote sounds like word vomit. 😂
This has been the best talk on consciousness I have ever seen. It really shows the progress that is being made.
Agreed.
Though its mainly about perception and less about the question he asks in the beginning "why is life in first person". I think he smartly avoids showing the actual lack of data/evidence/knowledge about those things and distracts us with a lot of progress in the fields of perception and how our senses work.
"why is life in first person" is not a very good question. I would answer "how is life in first person" by saying simply, because of locality, i.e. "No matter where you go, there you are". I fail to see why it's any more complicated than that.
+Dan Searle
The true question is "why am I me, and not you?". Once you start getting down this path, the answer narrows itself down immensely. All you have to do is think about the limits of what a brain can physically do. As in, how can you change a brain, and how would your perspective shift with said changes?
Change number 1: Cutting out bits of your brain. Would part of your perspective die with it? Or would your perspective die completely, and a new one takes your place?
Change number 2: Cutting a brain in half, but cloning each half and then recombining each original with it's cloned counterpart, creating two new brains, each with half of you. Which brain would be you? Both? Neither? If both, that implies that you exist no matter what happens to the atoms making up your synapses, so this should extend to singular particles as well. As in, particle interactions form qualia, but qualia can only experience with a brain. But if neither brain is you, then that implies that you are the sum of your synapses, and any change in them would kill you and create a new qualia with every change (i.e. you 'die' all the time, without even knowing).
Sadly, these experiments are useless because it's impossible to measure someone's qualia. Still, one implies that everyone technically has the same qualia (as it's intrinsic to field interactions), while the other implies that qualia is a finicky thing that changes all the time. Either that, or qualia doesn't exist at all, but that's not really something we can consider.
Cortster"why am I me, and not you?", again I would say it's best to ask the "how" version of that question, and again the answer is the same, locality.
1: I would still be me, just different.
2: I would split into two parts, each part would be their own, they both could say "I..."
Again, I fail to see why this is a complicated question. Consciousness is an emergent property of the physical brain, each brain (network of connected neurons) gives rise to it's own consciousness. QED.
This lecture speaks volumes about the progress we are making towards understanding ourselves and the nature/notion of consciousness. I believe it's impossible to truly understand the essence of what we are, which is pure consciousness, in its entirety with the limits of the human brain, but by acknowledging it in science and continuously questioning ourselves, our world, and how we perceive it all, we are stepping closer to the truth, which in turn can/will help in aiding the enlightenment of ourselves and others. It was very interesting hearing him talk, and I admire the amount of work, studies, and experimentation he's conducted surrounding a subject that seems (at least to me) so difficult to obtain real evidence and progression. Thank you for this.
"With so often in science, with greater understanding comes a larger sense of wonder and a greater realization that we are part of, and not apart from, the rest of nature"
I am so grateful and I want to thank you for the lectures that I heard from you.
You belong to a growing group in the world that teaches and illuminates and heals many dark and wounded souls.
I don't know Neuroscience of Consciousness but in my opinion an excellent and amazing lecture.
You have personally enlightened me important points in the physics and medical sciences.
So I would like to wish you
Good luck to you Anil Seth
For any way you choose to go
Always that the cosmos will illuminates to you the way even in the darkest places. Love you.❤️
I was comatose after a car accident in 2005. During this time I was more conscious than when I was awake. I cannot explain this nor have I met a doctor who could. Consciousness is forever.
Thank you Royal institution and Anil Seth for this. This was amazing.
I enjoyed this lecture and learning the excellence of knowledge advance where Anil Seth takes a pivot role. Particularly, I find correlation with metaphysical higher consciousness "knowing" where he explains the "top down" comprehension of predictive information that is then constrained by our mental intellects in perception - rather than a feed of building upon basic information to form a solid decision of a material reality. In the realm of Supernatural, this is how we "predictively perceive" from past or future. We allow our decision making process to stay with greater boundaries than the diminished hard coded analytics of brain definition of reality. In simpler terms we use our imagination to source information and then allow the perception to form without the normative constraints of physical mental controls. It shows me that scientific approaches are even closer to transcending a relational flow of higher awareness. But truly, this is a video about "cognition" - i.e., the mental understanding of reality from those five sense approaches rather than bridging into the realm of metaphysic or greater consciousness - where as physics now addresses, there is no scientific blind control because the brain and our mental understanding limits the existence of the consciousness to a mundane, material level in the same manner as he now explains. Thanks for your knowledge sharing.
I'm a computer programmer. This give me a unique insight into the nature of consciousness. To me, consciousness is a very simple thing to understand. In my opinion, consciousness is an elementary process in the brain that always tries to resolve 2 questions. 1) What is going on? This is analogous to input(s). 2) What should I do? This is analogous to output(s). There are sub-processes in each stage but the sequence of these questions(stages) repeat continuously all the time while we live. Consciousness also continues while we sleep. The biggest difference between awake and sleeping is that the brain is deprived of most of our senses and the loop time of these two stages is much longer.
On the first question "What is going on?", our brains try to make sense of all the available senses(touch, taste, etc.). The brain also uses it's memories and it's reasoning in this stage.
On the second question "What should I do?", our brains try to form a response to the first question. One of the main sub-questions to be resolved in this stage is "what is most important at this time". A decision is made like rest or run or talk about something.
Wow very simple and mind-blowing explanation. It makes sense!
Here's a question with that analogy in mind: Why does the routine run at all? Second question: By this understanding a dog, horse, chicken, lizard etc has consciousness. How far down the Tree of Life does this descend? To plants? Amoeba? Viruses? The Earth itself or the glalaxies?
Not trying to trash your insight but I would like to know how robust you see it being.
@@djanitatiana To your first question, I would think that it has to do with the evolution of brains/minds. As to your other questions, on the small end of the spectrum, when amino acids start to creating molecules that cooperate with each other. On the large end of the spectrum, groups of living beings that cooperate with each other regardless of distance.
On a related note, I think life starts with the ability to make a choice.
@@dennistucker1153 Thank for getting back Dennis, I really didn't expect an answer on a comment 3 years old!
So, on the first, the same forces that drive evolution also drive consciousness? Fair enough, although God knows what they are...
I guess the second question means consciousness starts with single cell creatures (prokaryotes) but not viruses, say. Do viruses make a choice? Probably not. Do bacteria? Hmmm. Tough one. Maybe..
DO you think consciousness can only exist in the cooperation of amino acids, or that a stratum for consciousness can exist in other arrangements of substrates?
Thanks again for your answer.
I will not agree that nothing interesting has been written about consciousness until 1999 but I deeply admire the intensity of the will, to find what it is and what it is not, shown in this masterful presentation.
I used to think that consciousness was merely an evolutionary „side effect“. A necessary evil for information (DNA) to survive and reproduce. I read a few books on the darwinian evolution of consciousness and some of their authors were smoothly able to make a sensible case for the gradual evolution of the conscious agent or it’s capabilities. For example the evolution of vision is very comprehensible and well explained, how you can get from a fuzzy shadow to more distinct shadow and light impressions to very delicate forms and a broad spectrum of shades and colors. It’s essentially the same for all the „skills“ of a conscious agent. Their gradual evolution and the conscious judgments that accompany them are very much understandable.
The big question to me is: *when did the first conscious being become conscious*, when and how did the first „I“ appear and how was it for this I to have come into existence. How was the transition from „not self“ to „self“ for the agent.
Ultimately it comes down to only two possibilities if we say that consciousness gradually evolves over time. One option is that nothing is *really* conscious and consciousness is actually just „less dead“, „less unconscious“ than completely dead matter or *dead with some extra*. This means that hypothetically „zombies“ could be real somewhere in the cosmos if the conscious agent is not a necessity for information to be processed and an agent to survive. The second possibility is that everything is at its core conscious just varying in degree of consciousness, from almost no consciousness to almost full blown consciousness. I don’t think that humans are „fully“ conscious and a bacterium *might* be even less conscious and an alien type 3 civilization *might* be even more conscious than we are. Or they might ALL be equally conscious or unconscious just with different tools of measuring the world. Our concept of consciousness is as good as our concept of life and I think both face the same problem ultimately. Either everything is alive or nothing is and what we experience is just a gradual evolution of what makes a thing alive, what makes it conscious.
I tried a psychedelic drug for the first time just pretty recently and even with a very rational and totally materialistic view on the universe, some things dawned on me under the influence of this psychedelic drug. Under its influence evolutionary necessities like distribution of meaning, a sense of self, a sense of reality completely fell apart and what was left was a consciousness that made experiences through the lense of the brain, through the lense and the sensory nervous system of the body. However the conscious experience itself appeared to be more fundamental than even matter itself. Until this day I don’t know if it was just an illusion of the brain but under the drug‘s influence it appeared to me that „the self is an reflection of everything just as everything is a reflection of the self“, It appeared that there was only one fundamental self, and that ALL things, even the things that we don’t attribute consciousness to are „the self“, the basic „consciousness“ that makes all things conscious and looks through different lenses on itself. I get this sounds like esoteric woo-hoo or religion and I’m not entirely sure if it’s really a meaningful or more importantly an -accurate- description of what‘s really going on but in this state of consciousness that I -a normally very materialistic, scientific thinker- was, this felt as obvious to me as it is obvious that liquid water is wet.
During the entire experience I was aware of this being irrational and I was even trying to convince myself that it is non-sensical but at the same time it seemed clear to me that „all is consciousness“, that consciousness is deeper than the self, that your consciousness is deeper than what’s going on in the body and brain, which does not make sense considering that the drug I took influenced my brain to give the self, the „I“ those kinds of experiences. The experience of taking the drug completely fucked my concept of reality and consciousness and although I still try to view everything as rational and materialistic, the experience of these things was so strong and pregnant that I wouldn’t be as militant in my stance that there is a completely materialistic explanation to consciousness anymore. Interestingly enough it also seemed to me in this state that with our scientific method will never be able to explore or comprehend the depths of consciousness. I can’t say if this is really true. And also curiously enough everyone who tried this drug and reported their experience to me (and all of this was after I had my experience) had very similar or even completely identical „realizations“. Big, big mindfuck that made me realize that consciousness is much more mysterious than it already seems to a sober mind.
You'll never find a fossil that explains that, but if I'm wrong I owe you a Coke.
When cells, trough the procces of division became an organism. Simple, like life. There is no afterlife also no God..i can't wait for the sweet embrace of death
I had a similar experience on psychedelics as well although I could never fully understand or integrate it with my daily life. Perhaps, we will never understand consciousness. But I certainly believe advances in neuroscience will make it seem less mysterious.
It is very interesting what you say ... I do not take any drugs, but sometimes I become obsessed with squaring reality and categorizing it (is not thinking of reality as something materialistic and rational is not a lie of our brain to believe Everything is fine like this, the reality is like that and not worry or stress?). Maybe the brain believes that lie of reason to believe that everything is fine. Some time ago I was very materialistic, but for an unknown reason I began to like the branches of phyloophies of idealism, until I objectively studied branches of Hindu philosophy, focused on the study of consciousness. Just a mental exercise, think for a moment ... What if we have not really evolved as a species, but have involved from an improved previous human (or as all ancient peoples, divine humans) say? I just leave it there. I recommend that you investigate Kashmir Shivaism. Everything indicates that consciousness is timeless and fundamental to space and time.
Had a very similar experience. Psychedelics turned my reality upside down and made me question every aspect of life. Keep digging inside yourself. There's more to the universe and consciousness than we perceive with our human minds. The cosmos and all of the hard problems with physics and consciousness are not meant to be solved - it's the nature of the universe. It's the nature of this human experience.
Thank you Anil Seth and The Royal Institution. I find you very effective "Information Sharers". AND, because of your Brilliance and Generosity, I have become more "informed" about this fascinating and seldom discussed/understood subject. I prefer to "learn better" than to "know better".
Thank You for Advancing My Learning!,
Ted Furlo
Professor Anil Seth presented an informational lecture on Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience, which identifies and interprets sensory information that represents and understands the information within one environment, as consciousness. I enjoy this lecture
"I predict myself, therefore I am". I am a strange loop.
LOL
@@diji5071 I appreciate it a lot.
Now we're not alone!
Do we love or hate?
More importantly where are you going?? Transhumanism. Dr Missler
a must-watch.
before one can predict one must start somewhere. I, how did you come to be? Omnipresent omniscient omnipotent. There's only one being that always was and is the same yesterday today and forever. Infinity cannot be defined by anything mathematically there's only one other that cannot be accounted for.
Yet again another superb lecture. A fascinating insight into aspects of how the brain works, what consciousness is and how we can use this knowledge. I hope there will be more lectures on this subject.
Elon Musk will explain the process of neural link and the mechanics of the process and that of the company to achieve this on 28/08/2020, hope that helps
What brilliant talk! Thanks for sharing this for everybody and thanks to Anil Seth for his contribution.
Absolutely the clearest explanation for a very complex phenomenon I know of .
It is truly amazing that so little is known about what is arguably the closest thing to us.
The human brain - and nervous system - has got to be the most complex structure known to us. Much is known about it, though. But there is, of course, still much to discover. I agree, it is fascinating, that the thing that keeps us most in the dark, is ourselves.
Well not for long... neuroscience is progressing at a rapid rate.
@@honsolow LONG before!
@@honsolow Yes, it's been *called* a 'soul', but that doesn't mean that's what it *is* .
@@marcussurleyadventures1928 I wouldn't be so confident - it may be impossible for neuroscience to get at the hard problem of consciousness, even if we fully understand how the brain works, we may still not be able to answer that question. Science can only tell us about what we can measure - we don't really know how to measure consciousness
This is the best explanation of consciousness I have seen so far. No fantasy.
Yet the hard problem of consciousness still persists. Ultimately no explanation will be sufficient in fully satisfying the age old discussion of this topic. Like most things it boils down to "we don't know."
One thing we were taught at school, when learning how to program an artificial intelligence software. In order for consciousness to arise, a certain feedback loop mechanism is required. In our bodies it's the signal loop, that starts from our brain thinking let's move a leg, then leg moves, then our senses pick up the signal from here, we see the leg has moved. So basically you need a neural network, a body and a signal loop. Luckily programming loops in computer science is easy. We made a machine, an automaton you would say, that can think and play chess. We believe, or at least our school does, that this machine is conscious.
A few observations have been made upon this possibly conscious being, which we will just state here in short:
- it lives in different sort of universe than we do, the fundamental law of this universe being that there is a non stop chess tournament going on.
- ever since it woke up, which wasn't until weeks after we run it, the beast never falls asleep (in our case there is no need to save energy during the night, so we don't shut down the sensors then and this way the loop doesn't disconnect),
- it developed ego only after it was sent to play in a tournament against other fellows.
- the first time people noticed that this AI might have a mind of his own, is when the machine started to deliberately lose some of the chess games.
How could you possibly know that it deliberately lost?
@@victormponcec I don't know. We have to look for an equivalent to as when human kicks the chessboard in anger so that all chess pieces fly around. Observe many chess games the computer plays and wait for this to happen.
@@KasiusKlej i thought you had concluded that already...
So you have no proof that your machine is concious, and everyhing points otherwise.
@@victormponcec I heard the proof was destroyed. I would look for new and better proof. Perhaps it can be proven the way they proved that animals have soul? Can
AI machine have soul? If you simulate neurons replacing them with software variables, then I think why not. There can arise so called virtual soul, that is a function or consequence of those variables and their values.
@@KasiusKlej I think it's quite possible to create a virtual consciousness, but I don't think the robot you described accomplishes that.
86% passive-aggressive with anxiety keeping it in play and war and stress increasing it. A jump of 20% in 60 years. It is a reason to understand consciousness
"hallucinations mimic perception" as Oliver Sacks said in a Ted talk .. in my view Anil Seth sets off in a sincere manner but is caught up in a scientific paradigm that is de-humanizing, Making something full of wonder like our existence into measureable stuff, instead of having the courage to stand baffled and admitting that he do not know (I am not blaming him and he does well under the circumstances .. in fact very well ) . We need to link concepts such as biomimicry, mirror-neurons , hallucinations vs perception, psychedelic trips vs "true reality" , We are getting there! Truly exciting times
Metrics are a tool, an extension of language, the point of these experiments is to identify the processes associated with consciousness, and without words to describe them, how can we understand what they are ? How can we grasp their importance ? Obviously those metrics are kinda crude, but refining them and properly interpreting them is also part of the process.
This is not de-humanizing for there is wonder to find in such knowledge. Science is not about measuring stuff, it is a metaphor of the world written in the language of mathematics and logic, and I would argue that there is a great beauty in that.
@@jeanf6295 no you cannot ecen use the word beauty in your world view
@@ahad1609 I can, however it is quite obvious from the responses I got that no one will understand what I mean.
Fundamentally not an answer to what consciousness is per se.
What this talk addresses is the processes by which the content of experience is generated, including a sense of self.
Enlightening and informative for sure, but tangential to consciousness itself.
Excellent! Thank you for such and insightful and engaging talk on such a fascinating subject.
All those circular arguments. Embarassing.
I find it clarifies the importance of ensuring humans are always given truthful information from the beginning .
“Today, I am not what I think I am.
Today I am ,what I think you think I am “
Qouli
The main problem of consciousness is not that we lack an understanding of the brains mechanisms. It’s not that we lack an understanding of why it would develop evolutionarily. It’s not that we have yet to find some module in the brain where consciousness lies. The problem of consciousness is that the answer is not satisfying to lay people. The answer does not conform to our intuitive idea of what it means to be conscious. The answer put simply is that consciousness is an emergent property of the complex patterns of neuronal firings within the brain. But consciousness does not exist just within the brain. It exists in coordination with the body. The body is constantly sending sensory information to the brain as the brain is making predictions and comparing them to the information coming from the surrounding environment. Our consciousness also has a social component. The people around us constantly affect the conceptual wiring of our brains. I’m 18 years old and starting a neuroscience major in the fall where I plan to dedicate my life to answering these questions completely.
Mac Holmes Nice analysis of consciousness but we still far away in understanding of this consciousness and purpose of it, along with the Universe and it's purpose of its creation.
Avinash Prem there is no reason to believe that there is any “purpose” for our consciousness other than that it would be evolutionarily advantageous. There is absolutely no reason to believe the universe has some purpose either.
Mac Holmes for consiousness it may be because of evolutionary advantages over a period of million years but what would you like to think of origin of spacetime, matter, antimatter so on and so forth!
Avinash Prem When we dropped the geocentric view of the solar system we dropped the notion that we are the center of the universe. Hence we dropped the idea that we have a special place in the universe. Things do not revolve around us literally and metaphorically. We are wasting our time if we are looking for an existential “purpose”. We can ask how the universe came to be. It’s nonsense to ask why it came to be.
Nice!
FYI regarding the experiments with visual colors stimuli and the ones dealing with different anticipated facial images in the left & right eyes.
1. Our retinas are a direct extension of the cerebral cortex (learned in a neuroscience class at Duke).
2. The optic nerves behind the two eyes join together BEFORE outputs are sent off to the occipital lobe for interpretation.
3. The fovea, the point at which the optic nerve connects to the retina is a blind spot for rods and cones, so it would seem logical to assume the brain long ago learned to make allowances for what we can't see in those gaps.
I see two different image sizes because one retina has been physically distorted by a disorder wrinkling that retina's surface, shape and distance from the lens, I didn't learn of this until my late sixties because my impression of the panoramic view using both eyes seems normal, and yet if I close one eye and then the other I see an image 30% smaller in the good eye. Some of this may come down to which eye is the dominant one.
good stuff---tho not much of this directly relates to what consciousness is---only what is needed to have C---(btw, 1965, Duke rejected my application---they were basically correct)----i will copy and paste your 'retina' thing to an email for my neph who is an optometrist
Consciousness - Reflections on the Comments of Anil Seth
This is a very interesting talk. It has lots of information on laboratory perspectives of consciousness. However, it is difficult to wade through it for the basics. The basics of consciousness are actually rather simple. Let me see if I can explain. (I’m a neurologist.)
Consciousness is the processes of recognition and extrapolation. Here’s how evolution did it.
In the beginning there was life that could exist but could neither sense nor react. Energy could be gathered. New individuals could be produced. But, this was all rather automatic. (The details of what happened during this stage are not fully known - i.e. origin of life - but that is another story.)
Okay, so, life first exists. Next, it needs to sense. In the most primitive forms this means sensing changes in environment that would have impact on core homeostatic mechanisms: reducing or enhancing certain chemical situations in order to adapt to the momentary external situations.
Then, along came reaction at levels greater than simple shifting of biochemical states. This is where we start to get into such things as movement or adaptation of whole systems to different needs. For example, moving toward or away from stimuli, or shifting systems toward feeding, reproduction, or other. This is the stage of simple reaction.
Then, reaction became more refined. For example, organisms needed to determine how to move - direction or extent. This was primitive reaction calibration.
Then, along comes primitive memory. That is, better than just reacting is the ability to recall the results of reacting in order to better select future action. This requires some form of retention of prior experience. This is the basic level of memory. It required the segregation of specific neurons that could act to retain the results of past actions and then use this to calibrate future actions. We still do this today in some forms of primitive memory such as “muscle memory”, as used in sports. We learn how to refine movement to make it the right kind and degree. We don’t consciously remember precisely how we do this (e.g. which specific muscles act in which specific order and degree) because the memory of these details is retained in primitive parts of the brain that we don’t normally contact in consciousness. But, we do still have these functions.
Through all of these early evolutionary stages organisms were still just reacting. “A” lead to “B” - in some relatively simple way.
However, evolution continued. Armed with primitive mechanisms of memory, organisms could begin to select from among memorized outcomes. Essentially this is the primitive form of “choice” - selecting a reaction appropriate to some broader perspective of the circumstances (e.g. from constellations of sensations). All of this is still about reaction, but with increasing sophistication.
Next, with the introduction of choice could soon come some primitive forms of planning. This is not just reaction; but, rather reaction informed by some kind of intended outcome. This requires neurons that are devoted to the task of connecting memory to anticipation to future action. So, we are moving to brain that does not have direct function in reaction.
By this stage we are coming to primitive consciousness. With the introduction of primitive planning we can begin to move past reaction. Organisms with planning can begin to “think about” what to do. That is, a set of neurons begins to be set aside that have the functions of selection, anticipation, and even extrapolation.
As the functions of memory access, selection, anticipation, extrapolation become more sophisticated they move into complex functions such as evaluation and judgement. These then form the basis for development of complex motivations such as goals, values, expectations and beliefs. All of this level is not aimed specifically at reaction. It is aimed at determining how to “think about” situations, possible actions, or complex ideas such as “perspective”. This whole level of neuronal action that serves these functions - beyond reaction - are the realm of consciousness.
At this evolutionary stage the brain is now armed with three populations of neurons: 1) those with primary intent to create manage body state (breathing, circulation, digestion, temperature regulation and so forth), 2) those with primary intent to orchestrate reaction to external circumstance (e.g. motion, defense, etc), and 3) those with primary intent to extrapolate information. The first group we now think of a regulating “vegatative” processes. These may remain active even during a coma. The second group oversee reaction and some levels of this are automatic, either marginally conscious or “unconscious”. The third neuronal group processes “thinking”. Neuronal conversations between first two groups and the third group is what we call awareness (e.g. being “aware of your surroundings”). Correlation of information from the first two groups to prior memory is largely “recognition”. Abstracted processing of information (by the third group) that is separate from actual stimulus processing is what we call imagination.
So, where in the brain is “consciousness”. Anil Seth’s talk gives some perspective. Yet, depending upon which specific function of consciousness we select we might get different answers to the question. Overall, consciousness is broadly located in the parts of the brain more recent developments in evolution (that is, the “neocortex”). Further, some portions of consciousness are more centralized to the front of the brain, where the “executive” functions are more-or-less located.
Are other creatures then “conscious”? Yes, of course. Only our anthropocentrism and hubris would lead us to believe that consciousness is ours alone. However, our vast libraries of information and stories stand as testimony that we do have more neurons specialized to work with extrapolations beyond reaction - that is, more neurons specialized in the production of consciousness. We have more, but we are not alone in this capability.
As you can see, consciousness is not mysterious. It is simply a stage in the evolution of information processing - a stage that emphasizes extrapolation rather than reaction. Thus, we now have the capability to watch videos, such as this one, and “think about” the information.
Here is another piece: sleep is the stage of integrating and consolidating information. When we are “thinking about” information we are awake and conscious. (If we are fully absorbed in such function then we may be seen as “daydreaming”.) When we sleep we are integrating and consolidating information. If we are in coma then neither of these is happening (as far as we know). (Yet, in coma we may still show some very primitive forms of reaction.)
Last, in a normal brain, information is somehow “tagged” as being derived from actual stimuli (experience) versus being the product of “thinking” (imagination). Thus, the normal individual can basically separate what is “real” from what is imagined. However, this tagging function can break down. In some pathological situations (e.g. psychosis) the mechanisms don’t work well and the individual cannot tell whether the information was real or imagined. In some other situations, such as drug use, the barriers between real and imagined are disturbed temporarily. This whole area of real/imagined boundary processing is a fascinating area - not fully understood. It is likely that there are specific neurons that are involved in this tagging process, and that their function can be subverted in various ways.
I hope this helps to “cut to the chase” of how these systems evolved and now function.
John P. Barbuto (MD, board certifications in neurology and addiction).
Thanks for the explanation. Are trees "conscious"?
Thanks that was a great breakdown, however there is still a lot of unknown about consciousness, for instance the fact that we can be conscious in an “OOBE” out of body experience, that would suggest a conscious experience can occur outside the brain & physical body
Josh Cavallo Good question. I hope he answers it.
@@Josytt I thought the same but while DMT, LSD and other psychedelics give the feeling of being out of body (I know from experience) I think it might be an internal hallucination with the reality tagging completely turned off, so everything you've experienced constructs itself in an unfamiliar incoherent manner giving the memory and thought of traveling into the astral realm, but it was your brain coping with no reality tags
Alec Carter I don’t think psychedelics really have anything to do with my comment? but regarding my comment with OOBE’s, there have been multiple people make correct reports of hearing conversations, seeing & reporting events which otherwise could not have seen while in an unconscious state. And regarding “internal hallucinations”, well the fact is we’re already hallucinating our reality. The only reason we call this reality “real” is because it’s the one we experience the most. Nothing out there is actually “out there” it’s information being interpreted & perceived through our senses in the brain / mind. I personally believe there is more to consciousness than simply being confined to the brain. But that’s just my opinion, everything is conjecture & nobody has the full answers yet. I would suggest looking into 5-meo dmt if you’re into psychedelics.
Psychedelics featured positively on a respected platform ♥️♥️♥️ you all should know what it is to be hyper-conscious
The red dot did disappear occasionally! Very intriguing...
We could also propose that consciousness does not originate in the brain however it creates the brain in order to settle in reality which sounds logical if you think about it... ironically....
For sure, that view is on the table. I don't think we know enough yet to be able to fully commit to any one particular philosophical stance. All options are open !
Tesla talked about this (in a subjectively different terminology) about the core of knowledge in which everything is drawn from, and his desire to tap into it fully
@@MrPerson0010 very true! A nice shot of Kundalini energy can pop open the mind. Namaste! ;-)
I was trained in materialistic explanations of how our brains create the mind. It was my philosophy for decades. That said, in the last decade, I have written papers and stories using words that I have never thought to use before. The terms and concepts just appeared in my mind as I was writing. Its an example of unique experiences that firmly feels as if the sentences were funneled through me and onto the word processor. I guess the best way to describe the experiences, was that it felt strongly supernatural and not created by my mind.
Were they of any use?
I've always been fascinated by consciousness. I think the biggest question of 'self' is if our consciousness gives rise to qualia, or if qualia exists in any system where energy is exchanged (which would mean even friction would technically experience qualia, but the system would lack the consciousness to actually experience [if that makes sense; this topic is difficult to explain]). And by qualia, I mean the personal experience of being you and not someone else. That even if there were two yous that had the same exact brain chemistry, you would happen to be one, but not the other.
Sadly, this is completely a subjective experience that is impossible to quantify by definition. If I couldn't experience "I think, therefore I am" I would say qualia is an illusion, and consciousness is all there is. I wonder if a genius will ever come along with a method to test the currently untestable?
To be more clear, qualia doesn't require consciousness to exist (depending on how qualia works), but qualia does require consciousness to experience. Because qualia could maybe exist where there is no consciousnesses, as all qualia is is an attempt to explain the experience of experiencing consciousness. And since consciousness is just matter exchanging energy at the smallest scales (like all molecular interaction), qualia may or may not require consciousness at all. Think of qualia like being the viewer of the 'movie' that is particle interaction. Only, this viewer doesn't experience anything except the movie they are watching. And consciousness as the sum of all that interaction, creating complexity and allowing qualia to become something that can think.
PS: I separate qualia and consciousness when I talk about this subject because most people lump qualia and consciousness into just consciousnesses. I feel this is a mistake. Consciousness is already used to refer to the sum of brain activity. Using it to describe the subjective sense of self is also correct, but not when describing the subjective self from said person's actual perspective. Two people could technically have the same consciousness in the far future when we might be able to copy brains atom by atom. But how do you describe who is actually who if they both think they are the same person? That's where qualia comes in. Or at least, that's how I think it should be if we ever hope to discuss this topic in a way that isn't confusing.
This is pretty much the same terms in which I think of qualia and consciousness. But I noticed you say "[...] [if] qualia exists in any system where energy is exchanged", and "[...] consciousness is just matter exchanging energy [...]", and then go on to say qualia and consciousness are different things.
Regardless of this nitpick, my conclusions on this problem (without elaborating on the explanation here) is that qualia is indeed a fundamental phenomenon and feature inherent in the universe, and therefore is present in everything, whereas consciousness refers to the specific qualia of complex behaviour posessing animals, primarily humans.
I too have always been fascinated by consciousness. My biggest question of 'self' is whether we actually exist.
KRishna in Bhagavad Gita already solved Hard problem of consciousness.. by first defining it : "
"Nature is said to be the cause of all material causes and effects, whereas the living entity is the cause of the various sufferings and enjoyments in this world."(13.21) and then solving it :
"Yet in this body there is another, a transcendental enjoyer, who is the Lord, the supreme proprietor, who exists as the overseer and permitter, and who is known as the Supersoul."
so you have objective ,subjective and supersubjective
@@MarpLG This explains absolutely nothing.
@@cortster12 in HPC you have always this paradox consciousness vs matter...on whatever side you goes there is problem.. so solution is third party.. everything is consciousness but not our consciousness.. Wawe collapse is becouse of Gods observation ... "Man Proposes, God Disposes".. So all this notion that you manifest reality is half-truth.. becouse u can desire some reality but God is permitter and instrumental cause who actually make it happen..
Great presentation, thanks for posting. To be more precise, this is the neuroscience of correlates of conscious experiences..
❤️this. I graduated with my BA in general psyc many years ago, & there isn't a day where I don't pine for those tedious days on campus; long nights studying for neurosci, cognition & memory, & deviance; & hoping to one day return for graduate school.....if but in my dreams
Hold on to your dreams. The world needs dreamers.
@@reddragon2335 the world is chock full of dreamers dude!
Matter is the result of consciousness, not the other way around.
17:00 is an very important minute of information. Excellent talk about the function of mind. But we all (as consciousness experts ;) feel that that is not the base don't we? Being conscious like awake and aware of our a-a-roundings is not the consciousness we want address, right? I have without any scientific claim the impression that science is putting a TV in peaces and analyzes them in detail to understand the broadcast ... like I as a child destroyed once a radio to find the speakers inside ;) But that being said, understanding the TV set well is surely not a bad start! And it can help heal and prevent many health problems.
tons of quotes and tidbits of information. as for me, i'll have to listen to it over and over and over in order to grasp most of it
"You can think of perception as a sort of controlled hallucination, in which our perceptual predictions are being rained in at all points by sensory information from the world and the body." During sleep I suppose, this anchor is not there.
"... from the world and the body." Maybe we should add "EXPERIENCE" i.e. memory to these. During sleep experience could be there, to some degree.
An authoritative presentation of what we know and do not know about consciousness. Refreshing after experiencing the blather of Bernardo Kastrup and Deepak Chopra.
I can see many comments from people who are already convinced that no materialist explanation of consciousness is possible (the "hard problem") and are disappointed at the end of the talk because "this does not explain consciousness, it explains only XYZ...". They are looking for some mind-blowing secret insight, which unfortunately never comes. It's just hypotheses, experiments, data and math, but that is how science works.
Dan Dennett describes this attitude barrier as follows: By real magic people mean miracles and supernatural powers. Real magic, in other words, refers to the magic that is not real (tricks, illusions...), while the magic that is real, that can actually be done, is not real magic.
Ambar Nag Dan Dennett believes in free will that means he is ignorant.
It seems one of the interesting aspects of human behavior is that for the majority of people our brains operate under the perception that we, as an individual body, are a unique entity in the world.
Of course our memory serves us individually as we accumulate unique experiences per individual. On the other hand it seems we overlook the fact that our bodies are in fact a mobile piece of self replicating pattern that is not something different from the Earth or any other part of the universe. The body is a node of sensation calculation.
With that said any perception that can produce the sensation of a self, or think of its own experience as an actuality is universal. When one person says “I” it is no different from anyone else saying “I”. Many people may refer the concept of self to their ego but obviously the ego is a result of opinion of ones own behavior which requires memory therefore is not fundamental.
The feeling of being a self is the fundamental perception of the entire universe focused on one particular instance, realizing “I am”.
Is there a open forum available that discus's this subject matter?? if yes could you please leave a link.. Thanks
Regarding consciousness, I stroked out in 2007 and awoke with total left side paralysis. My first instinct was to sit up and couldn't. Looking down I could see my left arm, leg and foot. My brain was saying there's nothing there. I had no sensory perception of anything, touch, heat, cold, pain, tingling. Just nothingness. The right leg felt like a 100 lb sack of potatoes was attached to it. Meanwhile my mind was shouting, yes it is, yes it is! I can see it! The left side exists! The really weird thing was feeling shocked each time I looked down. My friend appeared at my bedside. She told me I was in rehab. I thought I was in the hospital the day after the stroke..She said we had talked every day for the past two weeks. I remember none of it.
I recovered 70% mobility and walked out of rehab three months later. A runner, I felt it imperative to approach rehab like training for a marathon. It worked, but full disclosure, not as well as I'd hoped. The biggest lesson though was the dichotomy in the mind brain consortium. I had always been a monist. Now it doesn't matter to me. Only the present matters.
The second biggest lesson? At all costs avoid falling into a depressive state. You will have plenty of time to feel sorry for yourself later. You can reconnect your brain and body by reverse engineering yourself thru physical and mental exercise, sending motor control signals backwards into the PNS, spinal cord and CNS of the brain. The brain will find a way to reestablish those connections, but do not wait one second to get started. .
That is an intellectually bankrupt answer to the philosophical question of fatalism but you may be right. Most are in denial over their own ignorance. Some believe they are morally superior and yet somehow that gives them the right to act immorally. Is there anything beyond this mortal life we were thrust into without explanation or choice? Nobody wants to think that it starts and ends inside our own heads and that there is nothing else.
My comment was a reflection of my POV on monism versus dualism, that the voice in my head is our gestalt, the connection of our whole being as a person to the thousands of individual neurobiological processes that the brain oversees daily. Sadly the mind can only address one problem at a time while the brain juggles homeostasis, blood pressure and hormonal balances and a hundred other things simultaneously, but the point is, the connection is there if anyone wants to pick up the phone. It's not a philosophical question.
Our consciousness created the brain to experience this dimension/time/physical reality, not the other way around.
Yes, this is the truth. One can experience this themselves through (usually a great deal of) meditative practices.
This isn’t a useful way to look at things. It is a meaningless string of words.
Bullshit. If somebody bashes you in the head and you get brain damage, your consciousness is not gonna "create" or fix your brain. It's simply gone.
Consciousness ain't that smart, is it?
@@GeneralPet "consciousness" is not miracle, the rules of evolution are still at play, but this fact does not automatically debunk the assertation done in the main comment.
Very interesting lecture. My two main takeaways are these: 1. You are omitting to mention a key point: that is that we are aware that we are predicting ourselves and as such awareness is something outside of the brain's functions. 2. Is a mouse (that you say shares the same 'beast body' as we humans) aware of itself - by prediction or otherwise? Your hypothesis can only be proven if you can establish that a mouse (or some other beast body) fulfills the same criteria that you apply to humans. Paul
This is a fantastic talk. Thank you so much for uploading.
All those circulat arguments. Embarassing.
But once I fell asleep and I had no Idea how much time had passed. It felt like none at all, but it had been 9 hours. That was one of the weirdest - but best - experiences of my life.
Prediction error makes it easy to understand why so many people report seeing ghosts and bigfoot
It doesn't explain why my 3 year old brother and I at 4 saw our aunt as a material person who read books to us etc. We both described her and my mom and dad also sensed her presence after being dead for two years. My brother would not have been able to describe anything about he was a one-year-old when she died and I was two. She was minimally present for several minutes visibly. My dad had a dream about her at the time. Not a pleasant one though. Unfortunately science doesn't know anything yet about the reality of existence or anything
@@alenkratohvil7222 that's amazing. thank you for sharing that!!
@@alenkratohvil7222 Science is just providing us some pieces to the puzzle, especially the deeper it goes. It's up to us to piece that together with metaphysics such as consciousness to keep working torwards the bigger picture.
...so perception, and prior expectation, is just a way that the mind ‘tricks’ us, into believing that we are experiencing reality. His key statement is that we do not understand how consciousness happens, or, I believe, the essence of consciousness.
The greatest missing piece of the puzzle is the denial of importance and the very fundamental role of our emotions, which we generally misunderstand as "just feelings". This talk briefly touches on them but falls for the same distorted false assumption and even calls emotions a product of the brain. While we do empirically know that brains and the mind developed very late in evolution of all living beings. The very primary interface and a earliest tool to understand reality with all living beings have were our physical sensations, which evolved into feelings, which evolved into what we call emotions. They are not just stuff that we feel - but instead we actually feel the reality and understand and comprehend it through this - with this primordial earliest fundamental capability of all living beings.
It was this very primary capability that fueled and pushed and influenced the specific evolution of minds and the brains themselves as we know them today, because all these things work in feedback loops. They affect each-other. Evolution affects our biology and our minds and emotions, but they in turn also affect the very evolution - because they change the environment in specific ways, which then affects us back, both in the natural selection range and in epigenetic changes every individual creates and experiences in his own lifetime. We literally have two distinct hemispheres of the brain - precisely because of this fundamental, earliest interface with reality, this ability to FEEL the world and other living beings. (Iain McGilchrist gives a great overview and explanations of this biological fact)
Yet when we discuss this phenomena, we only think about the mind and reductionist approach.
It is this very false dichotomy that prevents us to understand these fundamental abilities fully, because we limit ourselves to one single approach, one single tool. Instead of using both the reductionism of our "rational minds" and the ability to FEEL the whole as a whole, with our emotions. Yet we still use both in every part of our lives, including science - only we dont admit it - because it makes us feel bad. In a nutshell.
Explained in more detail but as short and to the point as possible at:
surfacereflection.blogspot.com/2019/05/what-we-are-and-what-it-all-means.html
What a pseudo science nonsense!
1) no one denies the evolutional role of emotions. But emotions do not follow "feelings", they are just bunch of physiological mechanisms of survival. They are indicators of satisfaction of subject's basic needs. Satisfied - positive emotions. Not satisfied - negative ones.
2) all emotions ARE products of our brain, they are generated in so called limbic system - they just channel signals of the rest of the body. This system has evolutionary been developed in mammals brains. One can argue about time scale, but to consider brain 'developed very late in evolution" is great exaggeration. Even reptiles have brain. Emotions do not concern hemispheres. They are generated level lower to neo-cortex
3) We can not "feel" reality directly. Reality is just a number of physical, chemical and mechanical stimuli accepted by our body receptors. Feelings are not our third eye in dealing with reality.
4) missing order and notions. Feelings are just language-coded emotional states. There are no any feelings in brain or reality. First come environmental and inner signals, then they are decoded in mid-brain as "emotions", then we nominate them according to our culture as "feelings". There is no biological correlate to feelings, that is why any professional scholar avoids to talk about them.
@@maxovgrom It would be nice if you could see how you contradict yourself and repeat several of my crucial arguments but i know thats too much to hope for. Yes, emotions are generated on lower level then neo cortex, bravo. And yes, even reptiles had emotions, bravo again, although of course not the exact same ones as mammals or humans, although of course they were and are practically, fundamentally the same - because we all exist in the same reality, that we experience slightly differently - because of reasons, to put it shortly. But nobody ever claimed that anyway, except maybe you misunderstand just about everything that exists let alone my words. Its not any exaggeration to say brain developed very late in the evolution of living beings - IF you count from the very beginning, not frm "reptiles". Im sure even the wiki can show you which kind of organisms existed for how long. And Yes, the emotions channel the signals of our body, bravo again. And those signlas are not just satisfied and not satisfied as obviously we and other living beings feel and experience thousands of different emotions or all kinds of variety and intensity. Other than that you just splurged a torrent of nonsensical proclamations - like "we cant feel reality!" ahahaha... that one was a true pearl buddeh. You seem to be taking my post very emotionally, while denying that so it distorts what little correct thinking you have. Not to bother, thats quite natural and one of the greatest faults of humans. Especially when the Left hemisphere is leading the dance. Read or watch Ian McGilchrist a little bit then get back to me. Or not.
Oh and the number 4... thats just beautiful. I mean, really. Just glorious. Outstanding. If i pushed words into your mouth i couldnt make you fail harder.
@@surfacereflection8298 Well, Queen/ King of Arrogance, here you are!
'The Man who feels Reality' - great title for a fiction novel, by the way. Whith 'thousands of different emotions or all kinds of variety and intensity'. Ha-ha, lets count at least hundred. And invent a dosen of new ones in progress, very individual, charming, senceless...words.
Your "reality' is just some chemical compounds got into the olfactory system, fotones on your retina, the vibration of the waves that mechanically moves your eardrum and pressure on your skin. The rest is how your individual brain decodes these signals, mean the rest is just elecricity and chemisry on some genetic hardware.
Think about it, whith both of your hemispheirs. Think about what are 'feelings' in such a reality and how can you "feel" them.
Read Michael Gazzaniga, the man who is not about poetry, but about neurophysiology of hemispheres, and then get back to me. Or not.
Humans
Interesting and will finish your talk at a later date.
Words of suppose and probably are doubtful especially when my brain serves me well. Left me no question in my mind of the fact that studying would be very discreet, very discreet indeed.
28:04 - This is precisely the sort of thing I studied while writing my machine learning/evolution simulation framework.
How would you introduce conscious thoughts in machines? Would you embed a chatbot into the machine in order to simulate an internal monologue or thinking in words? Or do you think a nervous system that can feel pain and pleasure induce consciousness in machines? It would make the way we interact with machines more important and raise ethical questions too.
@@angelinarobert622
"a chabot"
That's a quite brilliant simulation of artificially made consciousness, I applaud you
In the plains of Africa, where we presumably competed with ferocious animals in order to survive, we relied mainly on fast reflex actions to save time to evade being eaten alive. We still retain those reflexes with us today. Being social animal and relatively successful species, we slowly decreased our dependence on those fast reflexes. Conscious actions are slow but effective in securing food by hunting smart, foraging and later on planting for food. We now became sedentary with lots of time in our hands to contemplate on useless (in terms of surviving) things.
Awesome video. More in depth videos like this please.
Thank you for this outstanding presentation by an outstanding intellect.
I was put to sleep for mouth surgery from having 6 teeth knocked out from a humvee rollover. Within a billisecond i was back awake and said no way your already done. Then ibfelt the pins with my tongue. What was crazy is the exact thought i was thinking when i went under anesthesia that moment of thought was picked immediately back upon awakening. Like thinking oh my G when i went out and thougt od finishing god when theybwoke me up. It stopped my thought dead in its tracks and the second i came to the thought completed itself. I mean i felt zero time go by
Billisecond eh.
As I fell unconscious during my first surgery, i blasted off in a bass boat as if I was in a space shuttle. I caught fish from the rings of Saturn and in the methane clouds of Neptune. That was the best fishing trip hands down. My second surgery was simular to what you described except I woke up in immediate searing pain and began cursing and thrashing. The instant I realized the anesthesiologists had injected something into my IV i went out again. The second was not as fun as the first.
Need lower CoG like EV (CYBERTRUCK)
With great understanding comes... great responsibility.
That's so amazing! This expands so much the definition and role that deduction has on intelligence and consciousness. That should change how people see the future of general artificial intelligence
his arguments are flawed. he is the typical materialist who makes no more sense of consciousness than the typical materialist does.
Good talk. Only thing I wouldve liked to hear mentioned was the idea that consciousness isn't part of, or from, the brain at all. I enjoy the theories that suggest it could be from the heart even. Or something else altogether.
Here’s a thought that may offer some insight into another perspective: What if the aspect of what is the real cause of consciousness, the very essence of being is not measurable by anything we have access to with current science. Consider that before we understood sub-atomic particles, much of that part of the universe was an unknowable mystery. So imagine there is a dimension outside of the physical universe, and that’s the starting point for grasping what we don’t know. Most of the exercises detailed in this talk seem to like a medieval alchemist trying to cook up a recipe for gold in the bathtub with sulphur, mercury and a box of matches... perhaps a brave effort, if these are your best tools. Anyone who has experimented with psychoactive drugs knows there are much more interesting adventures waiting. Anyone who has woken from a dream in which things they never knew existed were revealed knows, there is much, much more to know, or possibly remember. I believe we already know most of the answers, but have in a madness, chosen to forget. Attempting to quantify the mind through metrics of manifestations in the meat of the brain with the crude instruments wis probably better than giving up entirely, but still almost pointless. I believe the answer is within consciousness itself...that is the only door we have. Could the answer be in defining purpose?
Guess you're gonna have to get high enough to find out, bro. Plenty of cults out there willing to help.
Thank you for the Neuroscience of Consciousness. Neurology offers great insights into consciousness. The discovery of caffeine (Fischer - Nobel Prize) opened the door to understanding aspects of attention/alertness. Educational books like Nerves in Collision by Walter C. Alvarez, the How To (temporarily reduce) Inattentive ADHD symptoms book (about Hyperactivity) by C. Thomas Wild, and the Remarkable Medicine book by Jack Dreyfus help understand aspects of the neurology of paying attention. Movies like Limitless (2011) raise awareness as to what consciousness is. Metaphysicians such as F.S. Shinn have raised awareness about the practical power of uplifting affirmations/I am well/I am getting better and better statements.
I am a physicist and I will provide solid arguments that prove that consciousness cannot be generated by the brain (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of concepts used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is in itself, which means how the object is independently from our observation. In other words, emergent properties are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems. In summary, emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are conceptual models based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes; emergent properties consist of ideas through which we describe how the external reality appears to our conscious mind: without a conscious mind, these ideas (= emergent properties) would not exist at all.
Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, subjectivity, classifications and approximate descriptions, imply the existence of a conscious mind, which can arbitrarily choose a specific point of view and focus on certain aspects while neglecting others. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness.
Here comes my second argument: our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the process and analyze it step by step, and in every step consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes. It must be also understood that considering a group of elementary processes together as a whole is an arbitrary choice. In fact, according to the laws of physics, any number of elementary processes is totally equivalent. We could consider a group of one hundred elementary processes or ten thousand elementary processes, or any other number; this choice is arbitrary and not reducible to the laws of physics. However, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrary choices; therefore consciousness cannot be a property of a sequence of elementary processes as a whole, because such sequence as a whole is only an arbitrary and abstract concept that cannot exist independently of a conscious mind.
Here comes my third argument: It should also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is billions of minds and personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity; this missing unit is the necessarily non-physical element (precisely because it is missing in the brain), the element that interprets the brain processes and generates a unitary conscious state, that is the human mind.
Here comes my forth argument: Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of elementary incoherent quantum processes. When someone claims that consciousness is a property of the brain, they are implicitly considering the brain as a whole, an entity with its own specific properties, other than the properties of the components. From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of speaking of "brain" rather than many cells that have different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness. So, if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to assume that such a system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore such property would be nonphysical. Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it, but such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body, with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people, and to do so we use physical means, for example acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is, is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics. Besides, since the brain is an arbitrary concept, and consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness, consciousness cannot be a property of the brain.
Based on these considerations, we can exclude that consciousness is generated by brain processes or is an emergent property of the brain. Marco Biagini
All you have are arguments, you sound religious. We tend to focus on empirical facts which you ignore. But thank you for your opinion
I feel you view hardly needs such lengthy (and excellent) arguments. It's just bleedin' obvious. The amount of devious sophistry in consciousness studies is a disgrace. I imagine its motivation is the fear that the mystics, who study consciousness rather than speculate, will turn out to be correct. But it would surely be weird if those who speculate about consciousness manage to gainsay those who study it scientifically, like the Buddha and Lao Tzu. Perhaps one day these ideologically hidebound scientists like AS will bite the bullet and take mysticism seriously. But these days science is all about ideology, not the facts. I await the day when someone shows that the explanation of consciousness given by the Buddha and Lao Tzu is incorrect. I wish them luck with that.
At any rate, Anil Seth is clearly not interested in the topic. It's like listening to a child talking about consciousness.
Brrr, wrong. It is not scientist to ask for evidence. Name anything other than your god claim that you would accept ONLY an argument for.
The last part is very interesting and helps advocate a very wholistic undertanding of ourselves. The better you know your body and learn to understand it's signals the better you understand your emotions
What an amazing talk! Very interested in applying our best models to AI. Say, we come up with a system that shows the same behavior as anything it was designed to resemble and is intrinsically build on our best perception of how that thing works. Now if our perception is only accurately enough to fool ourselves of believing, that that thing is the same as the real thing, we could possibly create something that, in time, will change into something completely different than the real object. There really are some major ethical concerns. (For example, we create a human being that seems fine at first but slowly develops a dysfunction that may be good or very bad for said being)
Please share this brief video with other people: Atheists and Agnostics Need This
Consciousness is a virtual space, just like you can't find the contents of a movie on your computer by looking at the code or circuitry, you can't find the contents of consciousness by looking at neurons or its associated codes. We have to study the larger structures that neurons create.
You can absolutely find and reproduce contents of a movie by scanning hard drives' surfaces or probing flash memory, if you know how that information has been encoded in the first place; that is the missing piece in the context of consciousness.
I thought this was Tony Dungy and he was going to breakdown the cover 2 defense.
I'm one year late but I want you to know that you're still a genius for this comment.
I enjoyed this. I’m not sure we’ve answered two of the three great questions. We may have learned that the universe is bigger than we imagined but that only creates a larger area of search for our “place”. Quantum physics and dark matter have illustrated how little we understand about the “space” in which our world and our individual and collective consciousness mysteriously exist. The real question of the origin of life is not whether we are related to animals but how did life derive from matter? Since we learned that lightning can’t make life out of primordial soup, we’ve been spinning our wheels. Once we discovered that life was present on earth from the earliest epoch we had to let go of the notion that enough typing monkeys could create the works of Shakespeare. The simplest life forms yet discovered are complex beyond our understanding. Consciousness was a taboo subject, while we flirted with determinism, but the universe-as-machine model can’t survive in a quantum world of probabilities. I appreciate those like Anil Seth who are tackling these questions head on.
Everyone assumes the brain "houses" our consciousness. When you point to yourself do you point to your brain? No, you point to your heart. Not that the heart is the center of consciousness, obviously I don't know. And what about animals that don't have brains? If you are sane, you have to agree that they are conscious too.
What animals don't have brains? Are you talking about jellyfish, coral, etc.?
@@scrubjay93 Yeah, jelly fish, starfish, clams & oysters, sponges, anemones, sea urchins, etc. None of these things have a brain yet they are all obviously conscious.
Brain-imaging techniques show that the activity of specific neural circuits correlates directly with specific thoughts and sensations, which implies that neural processing is a least partly responsible for perceptual experience, and there is no evidence which suggests that organisms incapable of information processing possess perceptual experiences, so we cannot assume that plants/unicellular organisms are conscious.
@@c0rtikoZteroids1 It's possible that neuron activity gives rise to conscious experience, it is definitely correlated with the experience event. Some neurologists that study NDEs will not agree though, they have "evidence" of personal and patient experiences during moments of no detectable brain activity. The number of times people come and back with conscious experiences after being physically dead is a strong implication to me that conscious experience is not exclusive to neuronal activity. I would go out on a limb and predict that all living cells have conscious experiences, but since we can't measure consciousness yet, it's anyone's guess.
its really important to understand behavioral biology, frequency, and human evolution to understand cognition
Dear math oriented peeps: Talking before 14:00 he mentions something really interesting in mathematics. On youtube there's a video about how the FBI compressed fingerprint images, look it up
I enjoy a lot those topics, but most talks and videos about it are so superficial that its not even worth listening, its frustrating to say the least, I didnt watch the video yet so lets see what this got
Also, if some one here also enjoy topics like consciousness, dreams, brain/mind stuff and philosophy, do you have any recommendation on materials, videos, books... if so please share tks 😃😃
Joao Matoso Yeah I always hate how these talks can never explain it. Once we do figure it out it will be even more fascinating to learn about.
Some recent things that I have been learning about are machine learning and deep learning. To me that seems like the closest we have gotten to replicating the human mind. It is debatable if these programs can actually perceive consciousness though.
Athene's theory of everything is pretty interesting, though I warn you gotta have an open mind with him as his ideas are pretty controversial sometimes.
What do you mean by superficial? Something more than physical biology? Or not specific enough on the exact physical biology?
Joao Matoso have u watched it yet, how was it if you did?
rdizzy1 I mean both, like people who say those things arent physical cant present a reliable proof of how consciousness works and people who say its physical cant either
This seemed to me to be a talk about ego and mind more than consciousness. His last sentence was very telling and the reason why I believe his study is too limited. To understand consciousness to me is more like a frequency that can only be experienced if one 's brain is can remain tuned to perceive it. Like a radio picking up a radio wave, our brain is not always in the same state, but whatever consciousness is, it is there whether our brain knows it or not.
I agree. Its more about perception than actual consciousness.
Examples of sleepwalkers driving across, a city and murdering their parents in law show that this processing runs completely independent to actual consciousness.
Consciousness is just a word, I have therefore solved it.
Its a word your consciousness uses. Words are only possible because of your consciousness
Enlightening NeuroConsciouness Speech that I had ever heard.
Soul is consciousness. It has and uses a physical body for experience. Consciousness is not limited to the physical. It is not in the brain. Consciousness is the source, it is intelligence. Not to be confused with intellect. Consciousness or awareness operates in many levels and dimensions. It does not need a brain. This is evident when awareness seoerates from the body, either consciously, in sleep, or OBE, or near death experiences.
The ego clouds this truth thinking that it is the source. Higher consciousness is not experienced in the body. The mind cannot comprehend something greater than itself as it uses the brain for understanding, and is therefore limited. Consciousness must be expanded through conscious intention, meditation, contemplation or entrained.
Science will not know consciousness anymore than a fish can understand our life from living in a fish bowl. It may be intellectually stimulating but it is of little value for those who desire truth. Sit in silence, stop the mind and begin to learn the proven way.
It's dangerous to be so sure that your answer is the correct answer. The concepts you're describing appear to be outside the realm of testing, so it's more of a belief than a scientific fact. It would be more appropriate to start this comment with "I believe that...". And there's nothing wrong with that, nobody knows the answer, not really. We only know what we've surmised from our limited perspectives and experiences. This applies to all things and all people.
Very immersive talk and a great research work! For Prof. Anil Seth, I'm not sure if you know but the philosophy of consciousness that you presented in your talk resembles so much to what the Mandukya upanishad says about consciousness (One of the principal upanishads among 11-14 others from vedanta).
what does it say?
The Law Nam-myoho-renge-kyo represents the identity of what some scientists refer to as the ‘unified field of all consciousnesses’. In other words, it’s the essence of all of existence and non-existence, the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source.
Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the true creator of everything that is, ever was and ever will be, right down to the minutest particles of dust, each being an individual ripple or wave.
The big difference between chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middle man’ to connect us to our state of enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves by tapping directly into it by way of self-produced sound vibration.
On the subject of ‘Who or What Is God?’, when we compare the concept of ‘God’, as a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to Nichiren’s teachings, the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people call ‘God’ is our enlightenment, which exists nowhere else but within us.
When the disciples asked Jesus where the Kingdom of God is, didn’t he tell them that it was within them?
Some say that ‘God’ is an entity that can never be seen. I think that the vast amount of information that is constantly being conveyed via electromagnetic waves gives us proof of how an invisible state of ‘God’ could actually exist.
It’s widely known that certain data being relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects, including instant global awareness of something or mass emotional reaction. As well as many other things, it’s also common knowledge that these waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to even enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars. However, none of this is possible without a receiver to decode the information that is being transmitted. Without the receiver, the information would remain impotent.
In a very similar way, it’s important for us to have our ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our life, all other life and what we and all else that exists truly is. Chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach into the core of our enlightenment and switch it on. That’s because the sound vibration of ‘myoho-renge-kyo’ represents the combination of the three major laws that underlie all existence.
‘Myoho’ represents the Law of latency and manifestation (Nature), and consists of two alternating states. One state of ‘myo’ is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists. This includes our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them, our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re not being expressed, our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma, and more importantly, our enlightenment. The other state, ‘ho’, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes obvious to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory, whenever we experience or express our emotions, or whenever a good or bad effect manifests from our karma.
When anything becomes apparent, it simply means that it has come out of the state of ‘myo’ (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ‘ho’ (manifestation). It’s simply the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing something.
The second law, ‘renge’, governs and controls the functions of ‘myoho’, ‘ren’ meaning cause and ‘ge’ meaning effect. The two laws of ‘myoho’ and ‘renge’, both functions together simultaneously, as well as underlies all spiritual and physical existence.
The final and third part of the tri-combination, ‘kyo’, is what allows the law ‘myoho’ to be able to integrate with the law ‘renge’. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects together all Life and matter, as well as the past, present and future. It is often termed the Universal Law of Communication. Perhaps it could even be compared to the ‘string theory’ that some scientists now suspect exists.
Just as our body cells, thoughts, feelings and all else are constantly fluctuating within us, everything in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux, in accordance with these three laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of ‘myo’ and ‘ho’ in a single moment than it would ever be possible for us to calculate or describe. And it doesn't matter how big or small, important or trivial that anything may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now, or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of 'myoho-renge-kyo'.
These three laws are also the basis of the four fundamental forces and if they didn't function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. Simply put, all forms of existence, including the seasons, day and night, birth, death and so on, are all moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation, rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two universal states of ‘myo’ and ‘ho’ in absolute accordance with ‘renge’ and by way of ‘kyo’. Even stars are dying and being reborn in accordance with the workings of what the combination ‘myoho-renge-kyo’ represents.
‘Nam’, on the other hand, is a password or a key; it allows us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘myoho-renge-kyo’. On a more personal basis, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives from moment to moment, as well in our environment.
By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is turning, and rhythmically chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo for a minimum of ten minutes daily, anyone can experience actual proof of its positive effects in their life.
In so doing, we can pierce through even the thickest layers of our karma and activate our Buddha Nature (enlightened state). We’re then able to bring forth the wisdom needed to challenge, overcome and change our negative circumstances into positive ones. It brings forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that is preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we truly are, regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexual preference. We are also able to see and understand our circumstances and environment more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations.
Actual proof soon becomes apparent to anyone who chants the words Nam-myoho-renge-kyo on a regular daily basis. Everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect, so the strength of the result from chanting depends on dedication, sincerity and determination. To explain it more simply, the difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, or producing a song and so on.
At 43 minutes a question : What about the emotional self ?
Is our mid-brain forever coloring our experiences with it's first emotional imprints from (and including) birth and gestation ?
This definitely seems to be the case If we apply the same mechanisms of perception that Anil presents here...A liberating thought that could carry us beyond an inevitable binding and repetitious identification with our everyday emotional experience of life .
I haven't watched the video yet, but wouldn't emotional imprints also continue throughout life?
For those wishing to learn about cutting edge consciousness research, this is not the lecture for you.
Search TH-cam for:
1 - Experimental Studies on a Single Microtubule (Google Workshop on Quantum Biology)
2 - A Brief History of the Study of Consciousness, Stuart Hameroff
And for the extreme cutting edge in neurophysiology, Anirban Bandyopadhyay was very recently interviewed and stated he has a paper coming out soon. metadarwinism.com/how-deep-is-the-neuron/
Measurements are important. They exist because of the reflection created from mind. To know the mind we must find it’s reflection.
Great presentation! Thank you.
I kid you not, at 24:58, you poured yourself a drink and after chuckling at the speech recognition exercise, I went to reach for the glass of water myself! :-) Amazing clip!
Mr. Day Card is also my favorite philosopher.
It is very complex. I wish Icould understand everything. But it is beautiful. Thanks.
Wow I can't believe I actually watched all of it. I'm proud of myself. *Taps himself on his shoulder
Congrats mate!
Emilioh888. Will Ferrell voice* Emiliiiioooooohhhhhhhh!!!!!!
Not hard when it’s such an interesting topic
I was seaching for an elaboration on volitional self - (free will in connection with "sensing self" or "sensing being"). But I did not find any reference to cause-effect versus cause-mind-effect (or to be clear: "cause-mind-willful-change-different-effect).
That makes me sad. However I appreciate the sensory, cognitive research showing how our senses work and how our brain-machine organizes the result into a imiage. (He says "hallucination", ooops, a very wrong use of that word, playing on our ability to understand terms in multiple contexts.)
Neuroscience has yet to understand true conscious. Looking for location of consciousness is always going to waste of time. BG, upanishads described conscious beautifully. Yes, I practice neurology and I am board certified by ABPN
you are correct, they still believe consciousness resides in the brain, i wonder of they read research of their peers outside their own university. We are consciousness that uses soul and the physical to experience.
@Steven And the fact that a bump on the head can change everything about ur personality. Can't believe that people still subscribe to the woo version with 'souls' and whatnot...
@Steven I have done the research. There's nothing there except for woo believers. And I actually studied QM at uni. Nothing there either. Please show me the evidence of what ure saying.
@Steven no that is evidence that it can be shut of by stimulating areas of the brain, it doesn't mean the brain creates it. Just like turning the tv off with the remote doesn't mean the movie was generated in the remote,
@@sh0k0nes If you drop your laptop and damage its wifi it wont access the internet anymore. But you don't for one minute think you laptop generates the internet do you? But you think that damaging the brain means that consciousness must come from the brain. What if the brain is just a receiver for consciousness? Much like mass is a receiver for gravity. Gravity is ever where but its effect is only felt when mass is present. What if consciousness is every where but only made present by the brain? this is probably not the case but the point is you can't leap to the conclusion that the brain creates consciousness only on the grounds of personality changing after a bump on the head.
Great lecture which, as the best ones usually do, asked many more questions than it answered, particularly for me, on animal and machine consciousness. Especially impressive is that the lecture lasted 1 hour TO THE SECOND!
This is why glasgow coma scale is a very clumsy, outdated measurement for consciousness
Clinically extremely useful
What really interesting is that neuro networks in deep learning actually do similar things as our beast machine brains... Especially the Bayesian concept and the image in 27:55 . I really think consciousness is just the result of a connected network of neurons.. As the number grow, we got this continues interaction between so many neurons that resulted in a perceived continues consciousness..
Almost went unconscious watching this.
as u well aware that u were going to b unconscious is strongly justifying that u were conscious that time. lol
Mr. Sheth's enthusiasm is palpable.
Is there some kind of comparison between the concepts presented here with the concepts of Jainism? Please suggest if possible. Thank you.
Wow! He concludes that the bases of consciousness are in the material world without giving any evidence for it, whatsoever.
@John King You should go back to your temple of Atheism, idiot. I do not follow any organized religion.
In which world do you think it exist then
@@ThatisnotHair Everywhere. these are usually called statehouses, city houses, county houses.
@@NavaidSyed I don't understand
@@ThatisnotHair When people revolted against organized religions and divine right in France, America, and Europe, they just took out God and repackaged, renamed and rebranded the same old with new names for terminologies. The state is the same old religion created by Atheism. It is structured as follows: Name of religion; state, God; government, Apostles; cabinet, legislature, and courts, Prophet; chief executive, Holy book; constitution, Churches; public schools, and media.