KZfaq is my biggest teacher in life

After this lecture, in particular after he mentioned that our brains predicts the majority of the reality, I think I now understand why people with symmetric face/body are more attractive for us and why we like music! Basically, as i see it, for our brains it is much easier (less energy costly) to render symmetric faces, because prediction rate is very high in this case and on feedback we have less things to "re-render". Same with the music. Our brains might have easy time when listening to music, because music obeys math and easily to predict. And in opposite, imagine how it is "annoying" for our brains to look at the person with not very symmetric face and to deal with fixing our prediction when rendering it. I think this can be considered for a lot of things that we "like" or "prefer". For example, we prefer to be in a community of ppl that share our believes, which can be seen from our brains perspective that they need to do less work to predict these ppl, less work to "understand" them or be "understandable" by them (need to share less context), which is very energy cost efficient.

So good and enlightening. Thank you!

Great video!! found you through suggested videos. I just started a KZfaq Channel not long ago and very interested in the human evolution and spirituality topic. Keep following your passion and creating great content. Sending you good vibes and lots of love 💖

I've really been into this lately... as a yoga person and breath awareness breath worker... Combined with excellent nutrition... I've been noticing that the yogis called the ancient psychic skills "siddhis" . And though I do not pursue my meditations yoga practice and breath awareness skills for the sake of acquiring interesting psychic experiences... I can say I've been having some most interesting psychic phenomena in my life and it keeps getting more and more interesting and more diverse as long as I keep enjoying the breath excellent nutrition rigorous exercise and Humble living standards with self compassion and compassion for others

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 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

1:13:31 “we don’t have a clock in the head.” Research suggests we have a range of different temporal awareness systems, e.g. demonstrated by our ability to sync to rhythmic patterns.

Consciousness is without limitations of coarse one can not define it.

Fascinating that scientists want to repeat all the errors of the philosophers. So 1) all we can be absolutely sure of is that we are conscious 2) we cannot really know that other people are conscious 3) we do not have any contact with reality (things in themselves); we only know our inner reception of things. Very strange.

Ultimately what he means is if you can accept the existence of consciousness, you are conscious.

I prefer that consciousness is maldefined. Perhaps it is related to "qualia" which is just a reasoning error. E.g. "red" is not an experience: it is a negotiated social construct on experiences that are essentially non-comparable, you can say that they are relation-less nodes in a network of relations.

I really wish this guy would get to the point more. always several prefaces before a statement

I think a lot of us focusing on understanding perception and consciousness are underestimating emotional reactions, also produced in the brain. This is another reason why the vision impaired can probably help a lot with neuroscience more so than the same old what do all of us with eyesight believe based on what we have seen, see, and predict to see.😈-mjm

I better read thr transcript...🙏🙏🙏

I am not sure this lecture provides evidence that the brain produces consciousness. It seems more reasonable to me that the brain is something in consciouness along with everything else. In fact there can be nothing outside consciousness. I would point Anil to the teachings of Francis Lucille and Rupert Spira as a starting point and then also Bernardo Kastrup

What is "Consciousness" made of ? -- is it an integrated material energy that can made sense of data & information in order to form a judgment or opinion of what is?

What is mean the end of conscience?

Yes, this dude is all over the place other than the important theme. Nonetheless, this is a topic that embodies an enormity of traditional learning, consciousness which many are already awakened to, plus it would take a course or a degree to get it - although some people get it lightening fast! But, yes this dude is going off on tangents that lead to his sort of point. He should try reverse stream of conscious. He can’t but I’ve found that’s a great practice to master which I have. Well, sadly all over the place!

It would have been much better if we could have seen the diagrams.

Anils research is certainly relevant to ESP experiences/phenomena, it’s just that he doesn’t subscribe to the woo woo interpretations

Closet thing to a block diagram "consciousness detector" I have seen.

An this is what professional think.

1:47:45 that ESP lady lol

1. Consciousness is holding the same place in the universe what it holds in my dream. 2. My dream (Including me and others, who were living in my dream) was imagined, seen and known by consciousness, which was independent of my dream. 3. The universe(Including me and others who are living in the universe) is imagined, seen and known by consciousness, which is independent of the universe.

So there is no afterlife

10.20 Chutzpah! No mystery left to life? I know he doesn’t quite say that. Happy to disagree

That thing that is called by Your Name is an Intelligent System. Your body is made up of trillions of intelligent systems. There are literally 100's in each cell of your body. Intelligent Systems are systems of both Knowledge and Understanding. DNA contains knowledge and cell machinery is made up of Understanding Engines that use energy to understand knowledge. All intelligent systems organize their knowledge in a framework of Ten Directors which are knowledge concepts. The ten directors are: Name, Authors, Purpose, Environment, Language, Configuration, Operation, Owners, Market, and Value. You can adjust knowledge in these ten concepts and change your life. Enjoy !

the brain doesn’t produce consciousness & it’s more a byproduct of consciousness itself...Through that the brain does have consciousness... nth outside of consciousness but what emanates & animates it... we’re left to fill our experience with reality to multi realities of it... 🤷🏾‍♂️

Eventually, all scientific disciplines will acknowledge the reality of the human spirit as an entity with ontological status that uses the brain as its means of communication. You may be heading in the right direction, but you still have a long way to go my dear Dr Anil Seth until science overcomes its reluctance to overcome the taboo of using the word 'spirit' as a testable hypothesis.

I was conscious of a rather unpleasant, for me, first 15 minutes which appears to be commercial promotion (seeking funding, recruiting?) of his institute, justifying his institute's work and arguing with/about supposed opponents. Very unpleasant, like a publicly broadcasted political convention. But after that, thankfully, he began to share some of his findings.

The brain and the spine is an antenna for conscious... Bam, problem solved.

Consciousness is associated with “Thinking” and is independent of “Thinking”. This thought is understood only by Consciousness.

The most interesting insight Chalmers identifies is that science cannot study consciousness because it is an objective pursuit, whereas conscious experience is always subjective. That's why it's a hard problem. I can know my own consciousness but I cannot know for sure that other people are conscious even if they look and sound very much like me. There are no insights in this talk and the title is ridiculous. There is no neuroscience of consciousness.

We are wonderfully made! Science will prove true - the One True Faith - the one holy Catholic apostolic Church is God through imperfect baptized Christians! Without God and His love, our existence doesn't make sense! (Btw: Macro-evolution has never been proven! Where is the empirical evidence!? Faith and science are complementary not enemies! "I think therefore I am" is wrong philosophy! We did not create ourselves! The correct order is "I am, therefore I think!" The invisible and the visible! Catholicism is the science of saving souls! Nihilism has no hope! Life is a gift from the Holy Trinity!

you cannot posibly make 1 hour 49min long video from knowing nothing. because science doesn't have even remote idea what the hell consciousness is. that's a scientific fact.

O yea, another leftist intellectual sneering at the hoi polloi about Brexit.