Any discussion of consciousness should start with a definition of consciousness. My definition is “The subjective experience that we have from the operation of our brain”. The crucial part of the operation of the brain which affects consciousness is focus of attention. The neuron network cause of focus of attention can be understood as caused by the wave activity in the brain. Richard

Personally, I think this guy could've been a lot more clear and concise with his answers. For example, in response to the great question right at the start, "what is consciousness?" how about simply: "consciousness is the part of your mind that is aware of itself and its surroundings."

So, as I listened to the response to the interviewer's first question, it sounded to me like the interviewee did not answer the question: they did talk at length about (as in, they went around and around) answering the question...or something.

Alan Watts had an excellent answer for “what’s consciousness” question. It’s quite long answer so I don’t write it here to avoid spoilers , but it’s easy to find with google or from here, and KZfaq he has plenty of his old recordings regarding consciousness.

The function of consciousness? That to enjoy the show! 😀

Excellent....as physicalism has come to dead end , extended naturalism / metaphysics pointing to nondual spiritual approach being pursued by Hindus in India which has been tried & tested by saints since last about 5000 years ago.... only way to proceed further by going inside and which many scientists and philosophers are pursuing rightly.... ❤ thanks 🙏.

I am a physicist and I will explain why scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated solely by the brain; this leads us to conclude that our mental experiences cannot be purely physical/biological. The brain operates in a fragmentary manner, with many separate processes happening simultaneously. I prove that such fragmentary structure implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness; therefore, something else must be involved-something indivisible and non-physical, which we often refer to as the soul. (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Emergent properties are often thought of as arising from complex systems (like the brain). However, I argue that these properties are subjective cognitive constructs that depend on the level of abstraction we choose to analyze and describe the system. Since these descriptions are mind-dependent, consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property. Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what can exist objectively are only the individual elements. Defining a set is like drawing an imaginary line to separate some elements from others. This line doesn't exist physically; it’s a mental construct. The same applies to sequences of processes-they are abstract concepts created by our minds. Mental experiences are necessary for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs; Therefore, mental experience itself cannot be just a cognitive construct. Obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness; We can talk about consciousness or about pain, but merely talking about it isn’t the same as experiencing it. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams) From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because there is a well-known correlation between brain processes and consciousness. However, this indivisible entity cannot be physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Clarifications The brain itself doesn't exist as a completely mind-independent entity. The concept of the brain is based on separating a group of quantum particles from everything else, which is a subjective process, not dictated purely by the laws of physics. Actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. An example may clarify this point: the concept of nation. Nation is not a physical entity and does not refer to a mind-independent entity because it is just a set of arbitrarily chosen people. The same goes for the brain. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option/description is possible). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience. Conclusions My approach is based on scientific knowledge of the brain's physical processes. My arguments show that physicalism is incompatible with the very foundations of scientific knowledge because current scientific understanding excludes the possibility that brain processes alone can account for the existence of consciousness. An indivisible non-physical element must exist as a necessary condition for the existence of consciousness because mental experiences are linked to many distinct physical processes occurring at different points; it is therefore necessary for all these distinct processes to be interpreted collectively by a mind-independent element, and a mind-independent element can only be intrinsically indivisible because it cannot depend on subjectivity. This indivisible element cannot be physical because the laws of physics do not describe any physical entity with the required properties. Marco Biagini

The clerisy is alive and well. Be interesting to see how this would be received on the factory floor.

the consciousness that makes the cognitive exists, the consciousness that the 'intelligent algorithm' of nature exists, the consciousness is every where either in living being or non living things (magic)..

Consciousness is the medium of mind to understand the quantum mechanics.

Being aware is consciousness, seriously can we get some work done already. Peace ✌️ 😎.

Nietzsche contradicts because 1. personal timelines 2. some people have a dual perspective I’m all for whatever actually works!

How to define the nature of consciousness? It has never been defined, it never will be defined. Who will define it? To define it you have to be away from it. To define anything you have to stand out of it, you need a distance. Perspective will not be possible if the distance is not there. Osho , from the book 'Come follow to you ,vol 2'

consciounceness is when you are awake duh

1:45 consciousness- let’s hear a Daoist and The Dalai Lama chat about it. Tip: close caption or 1 speaking voice not a guest/translator combo 😬

nozamA morf 3 koob dlrow nepo niarB suoicsnoC ehT eeS

amazing word salad to be able to grift for so long.

It seems as though the "Verve" has a hard time explaining the "thing" or what "IT" IS. The question that seems to be "dangling" in everyone's mind....is that the basic essence of the project. ☞⚊☚?