This is possibly the closest & fullest explanation to how consciousness works in the brain-body that I've ever heard. If he's right, then we're perhaps a few important research papers away from understanding consciousness in an empirical manner. What a great clip from this show.

I wish I understood even 1 percent of this

KABOOM! By far the most coherent speculative scientific hypothesis of what "consciousness is" that I've heard, here or elsewhere. And refreshing - someone with a genuinely scientific approach: clear about what he knows and doesn't, proposing ideas with testable elements, etc. Bit of a disconnected topic, but -- if recent "UAP" reports are as verified as they appear, we have strong evidence, if not proof, that our current physics is not anywhere near complete (visually observable objects which appear on standard sensors and move with effectively zero mass/infinite acceleration, and then vanish entirely). A huge dose of humility is called for.

As Rupert Spira says... "Only consciousness is conscious" . "We don't have consciousness, consciousness has us".

The association between quantum measurement and consciousness is very appealing. But then one has to assume that everything around us must be conscious at some level.

The problem is in identifying brain with mind. Identifying contents of mind can only be done by referring to other contents of the mind. It is internal to the mind. Mind is roughly: perceptions, memories, and imagination. The relations between the mind's contents are not causal relations they are psychological associations. Experience is private, whereas observations of things, like the dissection of neurons or the recording of an MRI scan are publicly verifiable causal processes. Mind is really our way of understanding our social world which, of course, includes ourselves. It is a kind of understanding not a thing or a physical process. This understanding projects from memories of events to imagined predictions and conjectures about the people we live with and the places we live in. Most of what we think about is conjectures and predictions about things, people, and events that are not now present, but that either we experienced in the past or that we anticipate happening in the future. The fact that we are often thinking about things not immediately present means we our using our imaginations rather than our sense organs which implies a kind of internalized way of understanding things, just as dreams are a completely internalized experience, disconnected from the majority of sensations, and mostly associated with day-to-day memories. The mind is a kind of understanding, as opposed to our understanding of the natural world and its causal processes, which is mainly about empathizing with others, imagining ourselves in someone else's place, and utilizes metaphor, more than it utilizes causality. One could say that understanding the natural world is derivative from using our minds to understand our social world, which would explain why the first attempts to understand the world were all anthropomorphic, they were projecting human emotional traits onto natural processes like the weather.

Very very good

Great thoughts here!

Good stuff!

"That's why a lot of people say the mind's an illusion." "They're nuts. My mind isn't an illusion."

I would like to watch such a beautiful channel with Turkish subtitles.

Very interesting

Hola. Felicitaciones o congratulation por tu búsqueda. Un aporte NO olvidar que el EPR fenómeno y entrelazamiento es media por fuerza ELECTROMAGNETICAS y la partícula es el FOTON. UN ABRAZO. DVM JFG Chile

I will download this video and rigorously find the meaning of every word and add that to my living thought process. I am glad I listened to this completely to the extent where I am thinking of watching 46 more times. Sir, 72 years, you are still young and I strongly believe in you more than I believe in most people younger than yourself.

The total number of actions that any human in history has taken that wasn't rooted in a DESIRE stands at 0. Action is rooted in DESIRE as it states in the opening of the Upanishads: "You are your inmost DESIRE." An investigation into "Who did it?" is an investigation into the ORIGIN OF MY DESIRES!

transition from mass (time) in quantum wave at speed of causation squared to energy (probability) at expansion into space to particles (space) at speed of light and below has free will from having the time and energy to produce or create? in this transition, energy develops free will from time which has consciousness, and produces particles that are aware (as in brain)?

Stuart Alan Kauffman: That's what I was going to say! 😊 That's why you are in my top ten!

A long argument, yet quite believable.

Hi, Is it possible that you may interview people doing origin of life research or artificial life ? People like Nick Lane, Sara Walker etc.

Wow 😮 That was fascinating

My mind and my tiny🧠are like my soul and my spirit fueling my Consciousness .

Es EM generado por neuronal web o redes neuronales. Muchas Gracias.

"The causal closure of classical mechanics" can be broken by an organism that can learn in accordance with adaptive principles: A new way of responding to stimuli introduces new causal actions into the world, actions that cannot be accounted for using information that precedes the new learned behavior/response/adaptation.

Why isnt it enough for a deterministic algorithm running in our brain to simply call upon some quantum or chaotic process to generate random alternatives? Then it can evaluate the options so generated. (PS Ive been looking for videos like this since watching Sabine H's 'debunking' of free will, which I cannot agree with.) Even if those processes are only 'pseudo'-random and deterministic, with ~10^23 atoms involved, the distinction seems moot to me. In other words a chaotic process could give you a 'full' range of options for behaviour.

The arguments in this dicussion regardng conscious are based on the premise that conscious involves decisions: that is, choices, and hence “free will” to make some decision based on available information. That’s not how the brain works. The brain process information and converts it to patterns that are stored in memory - words for example. Those patterns can be associated by processes that take place in dreaming as well as daily experience. But the fundamental aspect of consciousness is not a decision, but a comparison. Awareness of some bit of information triggers recall of another pattern and a “thought” emerges consisting of both patterns and other related patterns that lead not to a decision but to an action. No quantum measurement decoherence is involved. “Mind / Body” is a perfect example of how the brain is constrained to deal with comparisons. Dualism is a false-flag created by the brain to deal with information from different perspectives. Are you conscious now? How do you know? Because you were conscious a minute ago. But that state no longer exists! How does your brain deal with that? It invents “consciousness”.

This entire conversation is lost on Robert. Me too. I don’t blame him.

The final sentence of "conclusion" to a recent paper (BioSystems 223 (2023) 104820) by Stuart A. Kauffman and Dean Radin reads: "Mind, in short, may have had -- and still have -- an active role in the evolution of the world."

There is no bigger irony than the brain trying to understand its own brain processes.

Descartes erred by assuming "thinking" is on the same side of the mind-body divide as conscious experiencing of mental qualia. If instead we assume (1) thinking is a brain activity (analogous to computer processing) and (2) conscious awareness experiences the brain's thinking but doesn't in any way influence thinking, then the mystery of consciousness is less complex: the Hard Problem (as Chalmers described) only requires materialistic neuroscientists to explain #2: the conscious (passive) experiencing of (some) brain activities. Although it would appear to a consciousness passively experiencing aspects of the brain's thinking process that the consciousness itself is the source of the thinking and isn't passive, that appearance is an illusion. The experiencing, though, is not an illusion. I know by introspection that I am experiencing qualia (and that's the only fact I can be certain about). I presume you too are experiencing qualia, because everyone I meet appears to be constructed like I am. So, explaining conscious experiencing of qualia is the Hard Problem, because it's not an illusion. I don't understand why Kauffman thinks lack of free will is a problem that must be solved by showing will is free. If moral philosophers' problem is to justify society holding people accountable for bad behavior, it can be justified without believing in free will, because accountability causes a deterrent effect: If someone's brain expects s/he will be held accountable, the brain will induce better behavior, and fewer people will be victimized.

Randomness is when we can't understand all the variables then we call it randomness. It is basically not knowing a mental construction.

Even if this guy is wrong ... He is really smart :0

Prof. R. L. Kuhn~! Prof. Stuart Kauffman! HEY! *Kuhn! Hey Kuhn~! *Me! I've been obsessed literally - my entire LIFE on the issue - issue - issue -., of ., - 'incontinence'' - as well.! So~! **! Believe me! Both consciousness and incontinence are closely, closely, closely - related as 'we' together live ''this life''~!" *PEACE! {*Voila~!*}

Conciousness is thought in a field of awareness.

Can we really say that neurons are the cause of desire.

Sooo... A fruit fly in South America has the same gene as a fruit fly in India? Hmm decoherence...what is the constraints? 13:50 must be like an entanglement hot bed. Do you like octopus tentacles fried to a crisp or flame grilled? If one suction cup is so extremely slow that in the first plot over the centre line 1) it is giving the entire arm decoherence transfer of the entire updated anatomic rule 2) it is co-ordinating with two other arms in close proximity to assist with the one plot over the line. 3) it can enter double dutch motion and it be in an identical synchronous pattern to feed information back and forth to the other two arms? 4) and when it has elegantly found a new plot/position, does that arm somatically read the direction flow and refrain from analysing/probing further. 5) then the entire systems priority is to sufficiently optimise quality equilibrium between the other core functions as that will always be paramount. Makes no sense really to do that experiment. Might as well make a fire and throw money on it so we can have saki and crispy tentacles. Im thinking bad quantum maths makes war with the waist line 😳... thank God for alchemic tomfoolery

Consciousness is fundamental.

It amazes me that they recognize the 40 hz oscillation in the brain but act clueless where this is being generated? Dr Earl Miller's work on the role of the advanced pre-frontal cortex and how it directs the 40 hz is all about this. Most of these philosophical arguments are muddled because they fail to unify all levels of the brain. Like looking at the spark plugs in the engine and being baffled how they make the tires turn.

72 is the new 62

We are huge robots and our consciousness is group consciousness of all matter of our nervous system.

I always wondered why my parents didn't hit me in the head with a frying pan after they brought me home after giving birth to their child. As well as, how far back does this premise go where there is a natural caring for the offspring of species seemingly with any higher or lower consciousness function, including the human development of evolution. It seems predetermined altogether from the very beginning of existences among all mammals. A kind of natural morality built into the programming throughout all times in order to survive and then over time develop ethics to a degree?

i go with the illusion as Poe does: life (consciousness) is just a dream within a dream, but i give you that for some maybe most it´s a just nightmare for no reason...

Please read the following very important sincere comment : The choice to believe does not necessarily require a reason. For lack of knowledge of truth, we can believe anything for any reason even without a reason. This is because our selves (souls) are not physical - not bound by natural physical laws but free... But, when you are absolutely sure about the truth as stated in your comment, then you are not believing but KNOWING which is hard to change. Belief can change when the absolute truth comes out. There is a huge difference between knowing and believing. Basic science states that properties of physical matter are bound or governed by physical laws (physics) beyond control and, so, physical matter has no power to make the change so to choose on its own to freely believe in Supernatural God. You are flashing material science into the toilet bowl if you think so. The power to believe to act on that belief on its own freely can not be a property of physical matter otherwise basic science or physics becomes obsolete when physical matter becomes free, out of control. Once again, ask your self : if everything is already determined by nature , or our choices are driven by physical laws beyond control, then how is it possible for us to have free time to decide what right choices to make while driven by physical laws ALL THE TIME, rather than just function automatically, driven by nature, like a clueless unaware computer driven by programmed switches ? You are almost saying that physical matter can take a break from physical laws to have free time to decide on its own what choices to make, what choices to terminate, when to make a choice, etc etc when the choices are already made in advance by nature for you just to follow like a programmed robot, if indeed your whole being is just physical mater driven by nature. And of course, if you are just physical matter, then physical processes takes time as you are driven by nature ALL THE TIME where you have no free time to decide on your own to make your own changes because all your time is taken by physical laws. In other words, you are not free to decide because the decision were already prepared by nature, if indeed you are just a physical robot. And the fact that we can have free time to decide on our own, screams loudly that our true being inside this physical body is NOT physical.... and, by webster's dictionary, we fit the definition of a soul, spirit, ghost, etc., as non-physical free entity. Don't you see the humongous contradiction when you define your whole being as just physical matter ?

I am not sure quantum entanglement can explain the unifying systems that could create the consciousness of self because these independent systems quantum that are entangled , would still have to maintain a structured locality in order to maintain the single self identity. Somehow these quantum entangled systems would have to “ know “ to remain in a local space and Time to give the “self identity” . Perhaps a better question is “what would be the parameters of the self”

Sorry, but you can wrangle it around all you want. It's "ALL" still Causal Determinism.

Flies are too fast.

He raised an interesting experiment idea which might be impossible to test about entanglement at the end. However, otherwise; even Robert was getting tired of this guy prattling on and really not saying anything.

Consciousness is a physical process running upon the neural infrastructure. Because it is physical, it is already connected to everything it needs to make changes in the physical world, like opening a car door or pouring a cup of coffee. A small signal in the brain tissue is amplified by the muscle tissue. And that is how consciouness interacts with the physical world. Right now it is telling me that I just wasted 15 minutes listening to a bit of nonsense.

So many people desire there to be something more, there isn't.

It is true that the unknown is the largest need of the intellect, though for it, no one thinks to thank God. --Emily Dickinson

No brain no consciousness. There has never been an instance or observation of consciousness without a brain.

I am extremely happy with your thought processes. It is absolutely, super on point. Every thing you just explained and described I found in the bible, especially in Jesus's quote.

Holy crap i have no idea what this man is speaking about 😂😂 ....i need to read

Life equals 42! (Joke)

The phrase that I keep hearing him arrogantly repeat is, “I wanna believe”, which reveals his desperate hope that there is no God.

What we call "mind" is a collection of capabilities emerging from the electrochemical reactions in the brain that form neural networks that learn and create the capabilities. The capabilities are the senses, actions, memory, logic (thinking), sense of identity, and subjective experiences.

The Axiom: closer to truth Some how, after viewing this video, found myself in the same position from whence i started. What i notice when i ready and study A.K. Coomaraswamy is that he never references those who are contemporary during his time. And what i notice in this video here not one Giant was referenced or anything cited. Therefor i question intention of such inquiry. If a man envisages himself as boxing champion of the world merely for wealth and fame he likely will never attain the goal. Intention very much plays a factor. GOD is a bad word today. The only time, too, do i hear mention 'Jesus Christ' is when there's contention. I study metaphysics, theology etc. and what i learn is there's certain purificatory rituals and rites. There's a type of intimacy and mutualbility of all life as a prerequisite - rigor and stringent tis this; and i mean to the core of Heart. It's not about thinking your way out of a thinking box - it's really the contrary. Is an 'undoing'. It is beyond science, therefor precludes left hemisphere. The Cause is in the effect; the Principle in the attribute. It seems, concerning the video question that we're trying to 'think our way out of a thinking box'. In theology there's a phrase, " GOD works in mysterious ways". BUDDHA teachers 'via negativa'. And... i buy and study only the oldest texts, as i've no time for modern science. The scriptures, metaphysics, sacred sciences, is all about Consciousness(GOD) and theze guys today, here, trying to reinvent the bloody wheel. Science and Theology Metaphysics and physics Knowledge and Wisdom Light and dark Principle and attribute Cause and effect KRSNA, BUDDHA, CHRIST EGYPT, INDIA, GREECE Vedas, Upanishads, Bible, Kolbrin Pythagoras, Plato, Plotinus, Proclus, Iamblichus, Eurigena Coomaraswamy, Uzdavinyus, Carabine Are we trying to bury the past here or something? Taking something that is not objective and applying physical methodologies is counter productive. The Buddha already laid out the ground work. Why these men refrain from acknowledging the Giants i choose not to discover. I buy and study the heck out of the oldest books and avoid any modern author.

Humankind are slaves of something we are trying to know what is it. But how the slavery serves the something ????

(3:05) *SK: **_"What's it supposed to do, make the billiard balls swerve?"_* ...I argue that before human consciousness ever existed, Newtonian physics ruled the day, The cause-and-effect interaction of billiard balls can be accurately predicted because they have *no option* but to comply. But predictability only produces so much information before it all becomes redundant. So, if you were "Existence" and you wanted to generate _new information_ to overcome this redundancy, then the next logical move would be to see what would happen if the billiard balls had *multiple options.* Thus, we are the newly emerged billiard balls of Existence that now possess *multiple options* (free will). ... All of the *determinism* generated by Newtonian physics is still in play, but now *free will* steps into the arena as a _game changer!_

Mind is a tool that determinism uses with sufficiently complex biological creatures, it isn't contradictory to determinism 😌

This guy is incoherent.

This guy is trying to understand something way above his ability. So, we end up with talk that goes nowhere.