Does consciousness arise from the brain? | Donald Hoffman challenges Hannah Critchlow

Donald Hoffman and Hannah Critchlow debate the origins of consciousness.

This excerpt was taken from "The key to consciousness," featuring Sam Coleman, Donald Hoffman, and Hannah Critchlow. Joanna Kavenna hosts.

#MysteriousConsciousness #ConsciousnessUnlocked #IsConsciousnessMaterial

Donald Hoffman is an American cognitive psychologist working at the University of California, Irvine. He is making waves with a new theory suggesting that, instead of presenting reality as it "really is", our perception is like a desktop interface enabling us to use reality effectively.

Named as one of the ten leading "communicator scientists" in the UK by the Science Council, Hannah Critchlow is an internationally-acclaimed neuroscientist with a background in neuropsychiatry.

[TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas]

Do you think consciousness arises from the brain? Let us know in the comments below!

[marcobiagini]

I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). My arguments prove the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit.
Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but I will discuss two arguments that prove that this hypothesis implies logical contradictions and is disproved by our scientific knowledge of the microscopic physical processes that take place in the brain. (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).

1) All the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary 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 is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). 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 and not the emergent properties (=subjective classifications or approximate descriptions). This means that emergent properties do not refer to reality itself but to an arbitrary abstract concept (the approximate conceptual model of reality). Since consciousness is the precondition for the existence of concepts, approximations and arbitrariness/subjectivity, consciousness is a precondition for the existence of emergent properties.
Therefore, consciousness cannot itself be an emergent property.

The logical fallacy of materialists is that they try to explain the existence of consciousness by comparing consciousness to a concept that, if consciousness existed, a conscious mind could use to describe approximately a set of physical elements. Obviously this is a circular reasoning, since the existence of consciousness is implicitly assumed in an attempt to explain its existence.

2) An emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess. The point is that 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 exists objectively are only the single elements (where one person sees a set of elements, another person can only see elements that are not related to each other in their individuality). In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Since consciousness is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and abstractions, consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property, and cannot itself be an emergent property.

Both arguments 1 and 2 are sufficient to prove that every emergent property requires a consciousness from which to be conceived. Therefore, that conceiving consciousness cannot be the emergent property itself. Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property; this is true for any property attributed to the neuron, the brain and any other system that can be broken down into smaller elements.

On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting. Emergence itself is just a category imposed by a mind and used to establish arbitrary classifications, so the mind can't itself be explained as an emergent phenomenon.

Obviously we must distinguish the concept of "something" from the "something" to which the concept refers. For example, the concept of consciousness is not the actual consciousness; the actual consciousness exists independently of the concept of consciousness since the actual consciousness is the precondition for the existence of the concept of consciousness itself. However, not all concepts refer to an actual entity and the question is whether a concept refers to an actual entity that can exist independently of consciousness or not. If a concept refers to "something" whose existence presupposes the existence of arbitrariness/subjectivity or is a property of an abstract object, such "something" is by its very nature abstract and cannot exist independently of a conscious mind, but it can only exist as an idea in a conscious mind. For example, consider the property of "beauty": beauty has an intrinsically subjective and conceptual nature and implies arbitrariness; therefore, beauty cannot exist independently of a conscious mind.
My arguments prove that emergent properties, as well as complexity, are of the same nature as beauty; they refer to something that is intrinsically subjective, abstract and arbitrary, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be an emergent property because consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property.

The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity and the entity “brain” is only a conceptual model. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else and by arbitrarily considering a bunch of quantum particles altogether as a whole; this separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional arbitrary criteria, independent of the laws of physics. The property of being a brain, just like for example the property of being beautiiful, is just something you arbitrarily add in your mind to a bunch of quantum particles. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction therefore any property attributed to the brain is an abstract idea that refers to another arbitrary abstract idea (the concept of brain).
Furthermore, brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a conceptual model used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes; interpreting these sequences as a unitary process or connection is an arbitrary act and such connections exist only in our imagination and not in physical reality. 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 is an arbitrary abstract idea, and not to an actual physical entity.

For consciousness to be physical, first of all the brain as a whole (and brain processes as a whole) would have to physically exist, which means the laws of physics themselves would have to imply that the brain exists as a unitary entity and brain processes occur as a unitary process. However, this is false because according to the laws of physics, the brain is not a unitary entity but only an arbitrarily (and approximately) defined set of quantum particles involved in billions of parallel sequences of elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. This is sufficient to prove that consciousness is not physical since it is not reducible to the laws of physics, whereas brain processes are. According to the laws of physics, brain processes do not even have the prerequisites to be a possible cause of consciousness.

As discussed above, an emergent property is a concept that refers to an arbitrary abstract idea (the set) and not to an actual entity; this rule out the possibility that the emergent property can exist independently of consciousness. Conversely, if a concept refers to “something” whose existence does not imply the existence of arbitrariness or abstract ideas, then such “something” might exist independently of consciousness. An example of such a concept is the concept of “indivisible entity”. Contrary to emergent properties, the concept of indivisible entity refers to something that might exist independently of the concept itself and independently of our consciousness.
My arguments prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property implies a logical fallacy and an hypothesis that contains a logical contradiction is certainly wrong.
Consciousness cannot be an emergent property whatsoever because any set of elements is a subjective abstraction; since only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, consciousness can exist only as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity corresponds to what is traditionally called soul or spirit. 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. Marco Biagini

[dr.satishsharma]

Excellent Distinguished Dr. Donald Hoffman is on the right path / approach towards consciousness.... thanks 🙏.

[rileyhoffman]

Correlates, yes; causalities, no. Physicalism won't explain consciousness, but it's the thing we can observe. Hmmm.

[ericfarina]

"Does consciousness arise from the brain?"

A better question might be, why do we continue to treat cause and effect like a linear phenomenon that can be perfectly formulated in the terms of language?
What we call "brain" really exists, and what we call "consciousness" really exists.
Cause and effect is a convergent phenomenon in an infinite universe (which we understand as a consequence of simple basic logic).
Consciousness does not "emerge" from the brain any more than the universe "emerged" from a discrete finite point in space.
A point is an artificial construct in geometry; a word is an artificial construct in language.
The assumptions that a word can in fact be treated *as the object*, or that a point can in fact be treated *as a reference*, are made for expediency's sake alone, irrespective of the fact that these assumptions are provably false.

[Screaming-Trees]

Donald is right. Correlation is not causation. I guess Hannah skipped formal reasoning classes.

[rl]

Consciousness is primary. Physical stuff does not give rise to consciousness, it is is the other way around.

[Meditation]

Hoffman nailed it!!! He straight up hit it spot on ❤💯❤️

[neddreadmaynard]

I disliked this video because it sent me to a website with a million click boxes and no continuation of the video I was watching. It was a conscious desicion.

[susankay]

MY consciousness arises from my baby toes (one per foot - the ones that go wee, wee, wee all the way home)

[jaz]

Fools and magical reductionism. Name a more iconic duo. So desperate to live in a barren innert wasteland universe. Because their only other point of reference is gods and magic. (Lol)

[jessewallaceable]

I read his book. It’s going to be interesting what people do with it in the next 100 years.

[Screaming-Trees]

At 0:33 - "what we can see is that there's particular regions, particular circuits within the brain that give rise to our moral behaviour"... Well no. What they can see is correlation not causation. Correlation is not causation. Do they not teach these people formal reasoning anymore in these masters or Phd programs?

[kathleenwharton]

The brain is just an organ of the body. The Spirit is the Life Force and works through the brain. There is Great That created our bodies and Everything. People Call it God but we really only have beliefs. Nobody Can explain it All and How it came about! But sure Fun to Try! 😊❤️

[Jjj]

If brain energy is converted into consciousness, then there must be a detectable loss of energy in the brain when a person becomes conscious. However, just the opposite occurs. Brain energy increases when someone goes from the sleep state into the conscious state. This shows that brain energy is not converted into consciousness.

[dr.mukeshc.chauhanconsciou]

My MC Theory of consciousness is completely different and is my scientific DISCOVERY that consciousness is separate from physical human brain or neuron correlates...I have Scientific proof

[NobOdy-szkp]

"With the exception of the artificial and abstract thinker in you, you are pure Nature". This is a phrase from a book titled Toward your Real Self.

[helicalactual]

He’s operating on the premise that there’s an objective reality. Or that reality can be interpreted objectively. Or some other permutation of objectivity being experienced this is fallacious the model actually shows that the brain generates the experience due to the machine state of the specific systems involved with the stimulus, in which stimulus is designed towards achieving some stasis be it mental, emotional, psychological physiological intellectual or philosophical stasis.
Since it’s all perception to stasis, which, when you get down to single cell level is energy output versus return on investment towards the equilibriating state of the entanglement structure, that is.

[MOAON_AABE]

Donald Hoffman is my hero. He is a pioneer that has the courage to test NEW ideas.

[ivytutoring]

What papers is he citing that tells him the p is 0?