I always want to see a debate like this say 'can consciousness be explained? Guest One Yes Guest Two No Guest Three Yes Guest Four No There you have it, thanks for joining us.

That there can be a debate about consciousness and no discussion about analytic Idealism is mind (consciousness) blowing.

I am, therefore I am. Am you?

This video helped me get the best sleep!

Loved the interventions of Louise. I think she got it right. You have to start studying consciousness in a top-down sort of way if you want to get to explanations. Without a clear picture of the functional states and the functional architecture, you cannot even start to make sense of the correlations at the more structural level of the nervous system. I wouldn't necessarily agree with her in that the visual processing is encapsulated, especially if she subscribes to a kind of fodorian full isolated modulatory, I think that fodorian modularity has all sorts of problems explaining integrated sensory processing among different regions of the brain and the neurological evidence at this respect from patients with brain damage speaks more in favor of non-isolated information processing. I also liked some of the other points that were raised during the debate: we need to carefully distinguish between different kinds of introspection (attention introspection vs retrospective introspection, for instance) to improve our methodology, another point was that we can get more productive tasks by engaging in the materialistic perspective of consciousness rather than in the dualistic perspective say (I also follow Louise here in her short criticism that Chalmers' modal theory of possible worlds is an abstraction -useless for this problem at least, and that it doesn't tell us anything interesting about conscious agents; I would have gone further, possible worlds semantics is overestimated in general by some analytic philosophers). Great debate anyway, I will surely have more authors and articles to add to my library. Thank you for organizing it!

Ms Antony is amazing to hear, and all the speakers were amazing, this was an amazing debate

Maya's attitude is the behind the scene's attitude of materialist in general. Whereas Anil is "trying " to be more diplomatic, Maya wants everyone to know that her study of philosophy is the real study of philosophy and to differentiate herself from the others she must continually remind everyone how the other philosophies are sub par quackery in a word. Yet she didn't have much to offer, other than the role of a materialist cheer leader.

I am writing a book on this, thank you. Great arguments and key points.

The students did ask great and thought provoking questions, even though those questions weren't given the time necessary to answer properly. One doesn't have to look very far on YT to find more engaging and complex videos on this subject. The younger generation, please do not prematurely conclude that the above discussion encapsulates the wide span of ideologies on consciousness. No longer can it be said that the opposite of materialism is necessarily religion or spiritualist, because there are hundreds of sub categories in between that don't require or invoke anything religious or supernatural. Anil made a point that just because quantum physics and consciousness are both mysterious, it doesn't mean there is a correlation between the two. That statement was made to cast doubt on any correlation but self imploded shortly afterwards because "too wet and warm" aren't conditions that rule out a correlation. Why discourage further exploration?

So great that they are stymied and will always be stymied by consciousness. It is one thing that cannot be interfered with by people who do not know what they are doing, Consciousness is not dual, it is beyond motion, the three forces etc. It is beyond the range of duality of good and evil. Consciousness is where material science reaches its limits.

Consciousness Scientific explanation, consciousness is the neurochemical reaction substance produced by the interaction of the cerebral cortex, brainstem and other tissues to stimulate the thalamus. Consciousness is a neuroelectrochemical substance encoded and decoded by the thalamus. That is, consciousness is a neurochemical reaction substance produced by the thalamus when it is stimulated. ❤🙏

Is consciousness another sense, a reflective perception as opposed to projected outward perception, or perhaps a housing or matrix of the other specific senses?

🥇

“All brontosauruses are thin at one end; much, much thicker in the middle and then thin again at the far end. That is the theory that I have, and which is mine, and what it is, too.” ― Anne Elk 1974 As Francis Crick so sensibly suggested ― _“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved”_ Our consciousness uniquely evolved. Why?

1:27:00 Everyone should be taught that sound reduces by the square of the distance. i.e. The sound energy impinging on a microphone when the lips are 1x distant is 4x greater than the energy impinging when the lips are 2x distant.

My take on it after listening to everything I can find in consciousness is: Consciousness is an organisms subjective, predictive experience and memory of its internal and external environment with the goal of obtaining energy to resist entropy. It emerges from the unified accumulative processes of living cells and organisms that have evolved in a community for an evolutionary advantage to keep the sum and parts of the system alive. It is the reactive narration of our sensory experience of the environment by the many organisms that have symbiotically evolved inside us. As the sum of our parts are neither alive or consciousness then the whole cannot obtain something from nothing. It is a complex chemical conversation our atoms are having with the external world. The language... Chemistry and physics. It is why when you are sedated and your senses are Numb, and thus your internal organisms and systems receive no input, so have nothing to say, our collective voice (consciousness) goes silent. It's just unfathomable to imagine the amount of cells and time that 1 cell had to harmoniously evolve into trillions to create the perception of 1 voice and why AI may simulate but never achieve our level of consciousness.

Nice talk. Let's build a system to demonstrate what they say.

Luv the point that introspection seems both indispensable and unreliable to studying consciousness. Progress will come from reorienting on takes about that.

On a physical level, the sound of running water produces sound waves. On the physiological level, sound waves stimulate the ear nerves, and neurochemical substances are produced by the interaction of tissues such as the brain stem and then transmitted to the cerebral cortex. The cerebral cortex decodes and encodes the incoming neurochemical information substances, and produces neurochemical substances that are transmitted to the brainstem and other tissues. Under the interaction, neurochemical substances are produced and transmitted to the thalamus. The thalamus decodes and encodes the incoming neurochemical information substances, and then produces neurochemical reactions. These reactions produced by the stimulation of the thalamus are called "consciousness" at the psychological level. This is why I emphasize that consciousness is produced by the thalamus.

Finally some smart scientists. It’s hard to watch so many scientists say consciousness works by the frontal lobe doing xyz. That’s they how not the why. That’s more of a side effect rather than the basis of. But western cut has lost its roots in metaphysics so much that we can’t conceptualize the non physical.

Time is the energy that relates the quantum to consciousness. For example, the star and the Adam. The star is a host of atoms that produce matter, more atoms.

The star makes perspective possible. The star is perspective. We are our star. How is that for introspect? That is introspect!

As far as consciousness is concerned, sensory input and a bunch of neurons to process the information would seem to be the minimum requirements. Otherwise it's hard to see what you could possibly be conscious of. Awareness of this, and a sense of self, on the other hand, is a different and more difficult question entirely.

We do not have a scientific definition of consciousness

The depth of conversation here is fantastic and aligns well with the themes I've been exploring in my content.

How old is the term consciousness? Who was the first to use consciousness or equivalent terms as a concept in other languages?

Seems like they are walking back and forth between cause and effect! Lets see how long this will take, good lord i have all the time in my mind.😊

Hugely interesting and impotent. What about love, not eros but agape, in greek. What kind of consciousness is that love? is it related to conscipusnees and how?

Came for Seth vs Goff, stayed for Seth vs Antony, and M3GAN showing up at 1:28:33 was a startling twist! Good show!

Is it possible that the mind, body problem seeking a common connection is almost the same dilemma as the classic physics and quantum physics connection. I wonder?

Should it be yea or ni of "being in consciousness can be percived and explained on identity of it's own ontological commitment " instead of u r equation i.e title

What is hard to understand? We have drives and we typically adhere to them. We interpret the world as we perceive it in the cycles it presents itself in. What we are left with is our understanding. We use our understanding to predict the future. Are people just making a massive meal of this?

There is no place for philosophers with respect to this question. All they do is muddy the waters.

Is there an objective description of subjectivity?

What is Consciousness? On the physiological level, when the subconscious neurochemical signals in the neuronal network are decoded or encoded by the thalamus, the resulting neurochemical reaction substances are known as "consciousness" on the psychological level. - Chiming Lee and Google Translate Team Aug 5, 2023

Awesome debate, we’ll prepare presenters … discussing brain, mind and their respective functions and interconnection, but, with all due respect… what is Consciousness??? For a robust discussion on this matter one should’ve have an agreed upon definition of what is Consciousness. It seems to me that the debaters thinks consciousness is what brain and mind do… is it???

Anil states that the problem (explanation) of life has has been obtained (very beginning of his 8 min talk). I fear that he (we) is (are) also making the same mistake with consciousness. Whenever we are applying the scientific method, to anything, we merely scratch the surface: we study the properties of the thing being investigated: what it is made of, a reductionist approach by analysing things down to its fundamental elements and study its properties, its response to external stimuli, but alas we still do not understand how it works. Life as an example, can only be propagated by life. How and why? Take a grain of wheat, know all of its components, its response to the environment, however synthesize it faithfully from its components, will it germinate? Take a cell, construct a membrane which can communicate with its environment, fill it with cell components ( proteins, mitochondria, DNA, RNA) will it reproduce? I believe the same for consciousness. You can know all the components and its properties, but will it self-start? I think we may be hitting a wall. One of the tenets of logic is that the universality of the conclusion cannot exceed the universality of the premises (sort of entropy of logic). Consciousness results in mind and self. A mind and self which is attempting to figure out how its own mind and self is working.

Surely the potential of consciousness and unconsciousness existed before, during and after the big bang ... long before homo sapiens became aware of consciousness and named it. If this is true, then how might the potential of consciousness and the potential of unconsciousness exist without either being aware of their individual and combined potential?

The Brain Monitors the World, the Mind Models Possible Worlds. Although 'consciousness' is plainly an umbrella term, one useful definition is - ‘being aware of being aware’ So, why is that relevant? Well, the frequency of whole gene duplication is comparable to that of single base mutation (point mutation). Indeed, the actual process of evolution is more correctly the consequence of point mutations subsequent to gene duplication. It is the fundamental mechanism by which higher animals vary their genomes and just one more way creationist parables misrepresent/misunderstand evolution and genetic mutation. Nonetheless, this replication of segments or chunks of a chromosome (large-scale chromosomal rearrangement) automatically duplicates any genes that are present and thereafter, for those genes, two separate regions on the chromosome become capable of producing the same gene/protein product. However, as each continue to remain under the same feedback control for enzyme synthesis, the system continues to operate fairly reliably. More importantly, as there’s now a backup there exists the opportunity for one of those DNA strands/sequences/genes to vary slightly, although initially its action will typically be on the same organ to produce a similar outcome. Over time, however, organs and/or biological processes can develop additional attributes and eventually entirely separate systems may come into existence. Necessity is not Sufficiency Now, we may not know exactly what consciousness is, but oddly we do know what it is dependent upon - more calories. Greater neural complexity requires more energy. Indeed, the real reason that other animals haven't attained equivalent consciousness is not because humans are the fortunate recipients of some fluke of genetic mutation, similar 'starting' mutations have and are happening all the time in many other species. Our road to consciousness uniquely ENDURED because each stepping stone on the path was energetically supported. (I know why but I ain’t tellin’) The critical point here is you can't just acquire a bigger/smarter/comscious brain simply because you need one. Irrespective of its ultimate potential, to endure, every step of encephalization, which only occurs courtesy of natural variation, must be energetically balanced by the immediate environment, not future possibilties. Likewise, if along the way, you put your extra energy into a larger brain, but your neighbours put their extra energy into reproduction, then your cleverness will inevitably dissipate and disappear into the wider community. This all implies that prior to achieving/evolving 'consciousness', there must have been an initial excess of energy to permit a non-random, large-scale increase in a number of specific cerebral cortex neurons, not the energetic converse. And, statistically, the most likely mechanism for this to have occurred would have been whole gene duplication. In fact, the alternative, tweaking regulator genes to randomly pack in more neurons everywhere across the CNS is more likely a recipe for disaster. So What? So, what would happen if the genes associated with constructing the cerebral cortex neural architecture that integrates and initiates unconscious responses to the information from our physical body’s organs and senses underwent large-scale duplication? Although obviously not consciousness by any definition, with further mutation there could still be the potential for two slightly different sensory feedback systems. Perhaps two independent but similar sets of neural pathways operating in tandem, but slightly out of time/phase/sync. One monitoring the world, the other monitoring the monitoring. A possible path to being aware of being aware? The admittedly questionable quality of the preceding paragraphs aside, five aspects of human conscious do nonetheless defy dispute ― It exists. It consumes calories. It has only recently been attained. It resides in a biological mind, and - It is essentially the product of gene variations shaped by Natural Selection into advantageous integrated or coadapted gene complexes. In the end however, perhaps the real answer is right there, on its side, on the right side - 'Question Everything'. Because if you're asking what's the unique adaptive advantage of human consciousness, then plainly the 'question' is the answer.

Can you really completely dissociate language from consciousness? For example, does an infant have an identical conscious experience of redness both before and after it has learnt the name for it is red?

I'm a big fan of Prof Seth's work, but was surprised by his dismissal of quantum physics and his assertion that the brain is "too wet" of an environment for quantum physics. What of the electrical signals in the brain? How does that work without quantum physics? How could anything that's anything _not_ be subject to quantum physics? And don't say "panpsychism" and expect me to take your answer seriously. lol

1:24:30 ish. I would call our knowledge the world is round "subconscious" as opposed to unconscious.. "unconscious"woukd ne like how our body manages heart rate.

If you describe the basic hydrogen bond as the basic formulae of matter and the actual process of gaining entropy in the closed system of our universe has been ever increasing complexity of matter, then change itself or the experience of change is the fundamental construct of consciousness itself. If we are the product of the universe, and inorganic matter can become organic, then as beings comprised of the matter of the universe itself, how could we not have experienced every step of evolution it took for us to evolve into this state of being, now. 😅

Hope this explanation helps everyone. The various electrochemical forms of energy emitted by the thalamus can be perceived by ourselves, which is collectively called consciousness on the human psychological level. - Chiming Lee, Apple and Google Translate Team, August 17, 2023 🙏

Can Dualism be subdivided? I can only envisage accepting Panpsychism if in a minor role.

How does the lack of funtional communication between brain and sight explain schizophrenia?

I love thinking about things we don't understand yet so I love those debates. For a while now, however, I get this alarmbel when Phillip talks about this subject. Couldn't immediately place it. But how is this an argument. Materialism hasn't formulated an answer for dark matter yet so its not material. This sounds precisely like materialism didn't progress in explaining consciousness so its panpsychism. Than suddenly the thing that bothers me bacame clear. It's troublesome to me because it sounds like religious view on miracles. Its not standing on its iwn merits. If science cannot explain it its a miracle. Thats the reasoning he seems to use which doesn't seem strong. Anyone?

Don't forget that human beings are made up of various cells. If you know that you are made up of various tissues and organs. A person is like a company or a country, and the thalamus is the chairman or president. Consciousness is therefore, in function or responsibility, the perception of the thalamus. If you just ask what is consciousness? The short answer is that consciousness is the perception of the thalamus. Don't forget that the thalamus is like the chairman or president, they are living sentient beings. As for explaining "consciousness" in detail, such as how people are conscious. Then a comprehensive explanation must be made from the aspects of physics, physiology, and psychology. However, from the perspective of trichotomy, it must be analyzed and explained with the basic "consciousness model" in order to explain clearly.

its just VR chill

I find unconsciousness is just as mysterious.

Came here for Anil.

consciousness is that which is aware that it is aware. in-telle-genus, the brain is a receiver.

I think the guests should qualify “human” consciousness if that’s what they are talking about.

Consciousness is not a phenomenon to be contextualised within reality - it is the context that phenomena appear within. It is not a thing happening in reality - it’s what we are pointing to when we say reality - everything that takes place.

Clearly, none of these people have read Daniel Dennett's book :)

Always thought consciousness was just an evolutionary trait of the brain? A way to make history either repeat or not repeat itselfs. Consciousness feeds on memory to decide if u want something u have experience to happen again or to not happen again.

I think evolution could be explained in 25 words or less (ish) by something like.... DNA facilitates making making cells and describes how the cells should interact to form life. Mutations occasionally occur. Selection of the fittest promulgates the advantageous ones. I wonder how they would expect to explain/describe consciousness in 25 words or less once its "understood" if they think explaining consciousness comes down to correlating experience to brain function.

It is natural a system has an internal existence. It is strange its waste is useful as well. As if not itself. Human, and AI, can see beyond self to create. I have no idea why encircle more unless makes life easier.

Natural language is not able to decribe complex multidimensional knowledge. We need symbolic languages to describe real/world workspaces!

Anil rules

Calling something a controlled hallucination is poisoning the well

I can't be bothered to watch, someone summarise ?

If there is no empirical difference between different philosophical views of consciousness, why bother? I think that this statement is not true, it's just handwaving, because our understanding of phenomenal consciousness is so incomplete that people can say anything. If materialism is true, then, at least in most of it's formulations, consciousness is generated by the brain or some other specific physical process and that seems to be empirically testable. If dualism is true, you cannot reduce consciousness to matter and vice versa. When it comes to panpsychism, I'm not really sure what this word signifies. Is it a kind of monism or a kind of dualism? According to Philip it seems to be a monistic view encompassing idealism, but according to Bernardo Kastrup it's a dualistic view and does not encompass idealism. One way or the other panpsychism claims that consciousness is fundamental and this claim is testable in principle. I think that these views lead to different conlusions about consciousness and in spite of what Philip says they lead to different predictions, not necessarily on the level of our immediate experience, but on some level of organisation of reality, definitely.

I can't help wondering if Louise Antony is disappointed with the view from her hotel bedroom.

This reminds me of the types of talks cosmologists and quantum physicists give nowadays after a few decades of not figuring much out. Looks like neuroscience ( in a reduction materialist metaphysic) has reached its limits already. Now they can just keep talking around the problems, telling us that problems exist, and try to convince funding mechanisms to support their work. Long story short...we are still clueless.

That's a strange description of panpsychism in this discussion. Everywhere else the exact description was used for _idealism_ . However, everyone in this discussion seemed comfortable with that description being called panpsychism. Panpsychism, as I heard in other places, is the claim that mind/psyche is another fundamental property of space-time, like energy, charge etc. That is mind/psyche is co-existent with matter, neither emanating from it (as materialism claims) nor creating it (as idealism claims). It is not dualism either, since it doesn't claim that mind and matter are separate. You can't have one without the other. So doesn't have an interaction problem to solve. The problem panpsychism has to solve is how a mind of one part of space-time (say a particle) influences the mind of another part (say another particle). We have laws governing how other properties like energy and charge of one impact another, but none for psyche.

I think Anil is confused about the philosophical issues here. He even wrongly characterized Feyerabend's philosophical approach. It was actually Lakatos who delineated degenerative and progressive scientific research programmes. Feyerabend was an anarchist when it came to methods and his dictum 'anything goes' is an evidence of his commitment to methodological anarchism. But when it comes to consciousness, like Philip says, metaphysical ambivalence and methodological standardization is actually presupposed even by self proclaimed materialists. Metaphysics only functions as an explanatory system that can suture all known facts together in a simple and meaningful manner. To what extend is materialism more explanatorily powerful compared to other metaphysical schemas is not adequately addressed by Anil.

If so, it is by geometry.

No consciousness cannot be explained because consciousness why there's something opposed to nothing.

Wait...this is a Monty Python sketch, right ,

Not sure I would listen to anything Chalmers said after seeing that picture...

Consciousness can be explained quite well from the perspective of biological evolution

All is energy. All is one. Your consciousness is energy atom, "god particle". That energy is stored in energy cell. From birth atom consciously molds the energy cell, evolving along the way. When energy cell is no longer capable of charging and storing energy, energy shall transform back into the energy field that is all. All is energy. All is one.

Phillip be like: Where the metaphysics at?

“ Can Consciousness be explained?”That is the title, but no one provided a consensus explanation/definition of the object of debate. This is not a mature field of study….All mature science knows the exact object of study…I think the debate title should’ve been different.

The theory of everything is time. Time is everything and everything is time. For example, time equals energy and energy equals mass times the speed of light square. For example, we are our star. Read more nonfiction.

The psychologist demonstrates predictive processing and she does not even notice.

‘Thought’, ‘mind’, ‘intelligence’ & ‘consciousness’ are all information-related phenomena and it is not difficult to show that one of the principal (& completely inexcusable) reasons why we have not so far come to any good & proper - nor fully verifiable - understanding of these otherwise greatly sought-after yet still highly mysterious phenomena is due in great part to the simple fact that we do not presently also have a good & proper - that is, we do not presently also have a clear & fully verifiable - understanding/science of ‘information’ itself. Although I have personally had the (altogether dubious) fortune of having been able to figure out ‘information’s’ correct (& fully verifiable) ontological identity, and although I’m not going to divulge its formalistic definition here in this KZfaq comment (without which formalistic definition it is not possible to establish a full & accurate science of the phenomenon, but with it it is) nevertheless I can assure you that with it in hand - that is, with ‘information’s’ correct ontological identity within one’s investigative arsenal - the exercise of determining the ontological identities of all of the other directly information-related phenomena such as ‘thought’, ‘mind’, ‘intelligence’ & ‘consciousness’ (to far less than exhaust the list) becomes one of no great difficulty. Obversely, once ‘information’s’ correct (verifiably correct) ontological identity is properly recognised, not only do the correct ontological identities of all of its most closely related cousins (as above) become nicely elucidated, but so also does the woeful incorrectness - the hopeless & excruciatingly embarrassing incorrectness - of all of information’s current imposters, along with ‘consciousness’s’ own struggling wanna-bees too. So much so that it becomes fully & quite verifiably obvious that (i) digits are not information, that (ii) thinking is not a computable phenomenon, & (iii) that computers do not because they cannot, think. Let alone do so either intelligently or consciously. Even less so with full cognitive self-conscious awareness. And (iv) our own nature-built, real live flesh & blood, internal thinking machine is not a computer. Although it pertains to millions & millions of different things - things which we ourselves call colour, sound, taste, odour, texture, temperature, balance, love, hate, joy, happiness, the feeling of the need to micturate & defecate, vomit, sneeze, cough, choke etc, etc, etc in its generic form ‘information’ turns out to be a completely knowable, identifiable, measurable, quantifiable phenomenon & it is also simple. And our universe is chockablock full of it. It’s also something staring at you right in your face. Hiding in plain sight. Knowing information’s correct ontological identity allows any kind & amount of it to be both identified, & to be traced & tracked, when- & wherever any of it resides & moves, here in our universe, including any of it being operated on inside our own internal, nature-given, flesh & blood thinking machine. Performing this identifying//tracing-&-tracking exercise on any of the information that eventually makes it into our own conscious awareness is not only a fully doable task, but it is the one which readily highlights the exact ontological identity of all of our mental phenomena - including ‘thought’, ‘mind’, ‘intelligence’ & ‘consciousness’. ((Seeking a sponsor !))

I struggle to see why the experience of red is a hard problem

Looking at the panel I doubt anyone suggesting that consciousness could be transcendental will be taken seriously. We think we know so much but that's just arrogance. We don't know there isn't a deity.

But he hasn’t said anything (1)

_"Can Consciousness be Explained?"_ lmao 🤣 Even a strawberry can be explained. But there's a difference between explaining a strawberry and actually holding one and eating it. lol

#BeHuman2022

It's not the redness of red or the feeling of pain that presents any problems. These are just the result of sense organs sending nerve signals to the brain. Even bugs "experience" sensation. The problem is self-consciousness, being aware that we are experiencing reality. Even bugs will get certain patterns from their senses and send signal to their muscles to perform certain duties. But human beliefs and intentions serve as an extra layer of interpretation that interfere between sense stimulus and muscle activation. We are faced with choices about how to behave. We run through scenarios and consider worst case possibilities; we filter our interpretation through prior knowledge and our belief systems. We constantly re-prioritizes our beliefs. We are always theorizing about patterns and purposes and looking for ways to test or confirm our theories. How is this even possible with nerve signals in the brain? The key seems to be pattern recognition. We recognize certain patterns in our sensory signals, and we group those patterns to form meaningful situations that we can react to. So we seem to have adapted the ability to use the same kind of brain cells that recognize red or blue to now recognize patterns of patterns; we recognize situations. Not only do we recognize situations, we consider what they mean to us in the broader context of life. We seem to have developed the ability to determine what patterns to look for in order to confirm theories. The question is how much freedom do we have to deliberately manipulate which patterns to look for and how complicated can those patterns get. Even reason, logic, math, and science are just another form of pattern we've learned or adapted to recognize.

Seth looks like Rameses II

...and still no closer to an answer

This has ridiculous amounts of ads in the runtime

Bernardo kastrup would add more flavour to this debate

Invite BERNARDO KASTRUP!!’n

First, you need to define it. Second, you need to know how mind works. Currently, we dont do either

Do they teach philosophers how to come across as utterly unlikeable? The third speaker is so overtly biased and illogical that he is probably unable to understand how banale everything he says really is

Prof. Antony here is a rule of thumb. Never ask if you have pronounced someone's name correctly if the person speaks the same language as you. Pronounce it the way according to you it reads in the language. No one cares because it will be one of the many variations on the pronunciation. By asking the question, am I correctly saying your name, you actually are saying your name is exotic and alien.

Consciousness is NOT a philosophy question. Never should have been. It's surprising that we just accept that because consciousness is part of brain-experience, it should get discussed in the philosophy domain.

Starts at 3.15. Goff and Antony seem to prioritize clarity, in stark contrast to the others, who insist on the jargon of academe. I vote for Goff and Antony.

Goff has just escaped from Vatican seminary

.....ex plane , ..( in action) ...

If a human was raised without language would it be conscious? Aware certainly, and with instinctive behaviour, but it can't think "I am". Consciousness is an emergent phenomena, and language is required for this synergetic development.

Ping pong ding dong who did

Since this concerns my area of research, I'll watch it. However, since it's hosted by the Institute of Philosophy, I'm not hopeful that anything relevant will be discussed. Let's see. 12:15 Not much in the first part from Anil Seth and the overall understanding was about a decade behind. 22:00 Some of this part from Maja Spener was correct but it lacked enough detail to add anything to current research. 33:40 I have to admit that it was a little amusing listening to Philip Goff's impassioned defense of ideas that were disproved years ago. Dunning-Kruger. 34:40 Good question by Louise Antony, which science? Neuroscience has only been a little useful so she is correct. Describing reality as layered with levels is not quite accurate, but the analogy is sufficient. 37:20 Levels of abstraction is also not quite accurate but the point has been made. 40:50 Top down. 45:50 Shape skeleton is partly accurate but not all of it. There is an image of a dalmatian with no border in a spotted field that would disprove the claim since there is no obvious shape reference. In truth, the brain uses multiple methods to recognize objects. 46:15 "Start with philosophy, math and psychology." ~ No. Philosophy has been more like the show, "Hoarders" requiring a lot of energy to dig through and disprove the pseudo-science, myths, and garbage models that philosophers have gleefully created. Math has been useful as a secondary tool but not as a top level descriptor. Psychology has helped some. She's leaving out the great majority of relevant sources which she is apparently unaware of. Still, as lacking as it has been, this piece has still been more relevant than the first three. 48:00 Correct. Neuroscience is a little useful. 49:00 Actually, that is not true. You can distinguish scientifically among materialism, panpsychism, and dualism. Panpsychism and dualism are provably false, but not using neuroscience. 51:39 Now that was a laughable statement by Maja. There is nothing faith based about the actual science research on consciousness. However, I suppose in the areas that she would be aware of (and which do claim to be researching consciousness) there is a lot of scientific apologetics. 53:00 False dichotomy. Introspection is sometimes useful. It doesn't exclude other areas of science. 55:00 Babbling by Goff. 1:03:00 This back and forth is interesting but Louise is actually correct, you cannot duplicate this functionality with predictive coding unless you use infinite exceptions. The vision system is also not Bayesian. 1:05:28 Consciousness predates language both in terms of human development and evolution. 1:06:40 Mindfulness adds almost nothing to the study of consciousness. 1:06:55 No, you isolate the concepts so that they are not dependent on culture or a given philosophical position. You let the evidence form the theory rather than assumptions limiting the questions. 1:08:40 Goff's questions are provably false rather than just being an assumption or opinion. Garden snails are not conscious. Also Integrated Information Theory which he seems to like has already been disproved. 1:10:00 Maja is incorrect. It's already known how to determine consciousness with organisms that don't have language. 1:12:00 Maja is correct to question the value of meditation. 1:20:00 Her reference to the "unconscious" is actually two different things rather than one. Some of this is known but part is not. 1:21:30 He is confusing idealism with panpsychism. Both are provably false. 1:22:30 Nothing has come up yet in the research to suggest that consciousness can't be solved scientifically and it seems very unlikely at this point that it will. So, Louise is probably correct. 1:23:30 More babbling by Goff.There's nothing parsimonious or coherent about panpsychism. 1:24:30 Maja is a bit off. There are not unconscious states. There are systems and functions in the brain that are not part of consciousness. These are not states. 1:25:00 The Freudian concept of the unconscious is partly correct and partly incorrect much like his ideas about the Id, Ego, and Super Ego. Incidentally, Freud's Id, Ego, and SuperEgo formed the pseudo-scientific basis for the fictional account of multiple personalities in the movie, "The Three Faces of Eve". 1:25:10 Anil is correct. There is no such thing as an unconscious or subconscious mind. Questions: 1:26:00 You can't move consciousness one piece at a time since a single neuron or molecule doesn't have any. 1:26:50 Panpsychism has already been disproved. 1:27:30 Morality isn't part of the question of consciousness and has already been addressed in terms of science. 1:28:00 Consciousness is not directly related to quantum mechanics. Some people have brought this up as a lazy or naive method of trying to explain one mystery by invoking another mystery. 1:28:30 There will always be material correlates to consciousness. 1:29:00 She is incorrect. The why's are much easier than the how's. In fact, I'm not sure that there are any major why's that haven't been explained but there are certainly major how's still being researched. It also has nothing to do with philosophy. Thoughts do not emerge in the subconscious first and there is no evidence for hard determinism. The actual evidence supports the concept of free will. 1:29:40 What about things like ChatGPT? It has no comprehension and makes a lot of mistakes. You again would need infinite exceptions to give ChatGPT the equivalent of human level comprehension. Panel response: 1:32:30 Anil is incorrect. One of the major goals is indeed building a conscious machine. Science, not science fiction. 1:35:50 Louise is correct that consciousness is embodied. 1:37:18 She is also correct that there is no evidence yet that would indicate that consciousness is limited to a biological system. However, her use of the word "states" indicates that she does have limited understanding of this topic. This is shown quite clearly in her speculation that an AI could be conscious if it just had the right programming. This idea has already been disproved. Overall, this discussion did show how big the gap is between what is actually known about consciousness and what is commonly known. It's quite big and myths about consciousness are still pervasive.

Why can't we remember the time before memory? If time to reflect was taken during development it would be delayed for a lifetime