Can Physics Explain Consciousness? | Prof. Dr. BernardCarr PhD

00:00 Donald Hoffman introduction
01:10 Making space and time
03:30 Role of consciousness
04:52 Final theory
11:20 Modified model of reality
22:00 Table of mental spaces
33:50 Brain as filter
35:46 Conclusion
36:19 Q&A

Did you enjoy this video? Be sure to give it a like!

Do you want to support our cause?
----------
Donald Hoffman is a Professor Emeritus of Cognitive Sciences at the University of California, Irvine. He is an author of over 120 scientific papers and three books, including 'The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes.' He received a Distinguished Scientific Award of the American Psychological Association for early career research, the Rustum Roy Award of the Chopra Foundation, and the Troland Research Award of the US National Academy of Sciences. His writing has appeared in Scientific American, New Scientist, LA Review of Books, and Edge, and his work has been featured in Wired, Quanta, The Atlantic, Ars Technica, National Public Radio, Discover Magazine, and Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman. He has a TED Talk titled 'Do we see reality as it is?' Prof. Hoffman is a member of Essentia Foundation's Academic Advisory Board.
----------
Science of Consciousness conference | Essentia Foundation

Analytic Idealism with Bernardo Kastrup | Essentia Foundation

2020 Work Conference | Essentia Foundation
In the playlist “2020 Work Conference” you will find various talks given by scholars, thinkers, scientists, entrepeneurs, professors, authors and journalists during Essentia Foundation's 2020 online work conference. Find the talks here:
----------
Welcome to the YouTube channel of Essentia foundation. Essentia Foundation is an information hub that aims at communicating the latest analytic and scientific indications that metaphysical materialism is fundamentally flawed. Our community of authors, including Bernardo Kastrup, lists a growing number of academics, scholars, philosophers, scientists and authors whose works are opening the way for a new, more functional and true understanding of ourselves and reality at large. By closing the communication gap Essentia Foundation hopes to communicate new evidence of metaphysical idealism to human culture at large.

And this is what our YouTube channel is perfectly suited to do. By posting interviews, discussions, lectures, informational video’s and other short formats we hope to share new developments in the quest to understand reality. Do you also wonder whether we actually live in a physical universe? Then be sure to check out our video’s and subscribe to our channel.
----------
Want to know more?
Take a look at our websites and socials.

Copyright © 2021 by Essentia Foundation. All rights reserved.

#EssentiaFoundation #Physics #MentalPhenomena

[HeronMarkBlade]

Fantastic presentation. I'm exploring more of Carr's work now, thanks Essentia! Laughed at the irony of Carr's comment "I'll probably be burned at the stake for this" - for daring to acknowledge actual human experience in the field of science!! Sad but true.

[leandrosilvagoncalves]

I'm so glad to be alive to see initiaves like Essentia Foundation. This donation of knowledge and meaning can surely alleviate the suffering of many people.

[Meditation]

Bernard Carr os not only a is also a great speaker and he is the Ultimate Gentleman!! ❤

[Vito_Tuxedo]

Planck, Einstein, and Schrödinger all said that we need "a new kind of physics". I became aware of those opinions via the work of Robert Rosen in his remarkable book, _Essays On Life Itself, _ a book that required both a level of focus and a kind of thinking that were so radically different as to be life-changing. Rosen cited those 3 physicists' statements within the context of his pioneering work in complexity theory. As properties of complex systems, "life" and "consciousness" qualify as subjects for the "new physics".

It is fascinating to me that so much paper & ink (and now electrons & pixels) have been devoted to the subject of _consciousness;_ yet it's a term for which I have not yet seen a serviceable explicit definition let alone one that is universally accepted. As far as I know, the only definitions we seem to be able to muster are ultimately descriptions of its characteristics, or functions; but they all fall short. It is much easier for me to define "God" than "consciousness".

Anyhow, I enjoyed Prof. Carr's talk immensely, and guffawed at several points in the presentation. It's regrettable that he so frequently felt compelled to stipulate that his views are speculative, and are not shared by the majority of mainstream physicists. I understood that from the start. In fact, Essentia's mission to liberate our quest to understand consciousness from the physicalist (materialist) perspective of most of contemporary physics implies that initial hypotheses are necessarily speculative...

...but that's the nature of paradigm shifts. You have to start somewhere, and forward progress always begins with imagining the answers to what Robert Rosen calls "the well-posed question". The right question is its own road map to the answer. As Bernardo's own work demonstrates, the most progress results from those who think clearly enough to discover the right questions in the first place.

[Fosmea]

Just a quick correction: the introduction was done by Bernardo Kastrup, not by Donald Hoffman.

[icygood]

The relationship between our experience of time and the structure of reality itself is such a fascinating topic. Of course, it's essential (to my thinking) to postulate big-C consciousness as well, otherwise we get another spatio-temporal dimension of physics without the phenomenal experience of time which we know first-hand. Brilliant presentation!

[surrendertoflow]

Fantastic! Exactly the discussion I have been looking for! 👏🏻

[beherenowspace]

Very refreshing to hear a physicist take seriously the huge amount of evidence of paranormal experiences ad. seek a model that can incorporate them.

[herrDrKarlSmithDadhD]

In general, I am extremely sympathetic to where Dr. Carr is going. What I don't grasp, however, is what all this extra geometry is doing for us. I think there was so mention perhaps of two different arrows of time. I am not sure if I followed that correctly, but that strikes me as interesting. If there was like a time manifold where time moving across arrow 1 also had fingers of a sort moving across arrow 2.

That said, my bias is not to multiply our reified geometries but to collapse them. To see that three-dimensional space is actually emergent from some simple ordinality that only has parent-child-like relations between events. The motivation here is that on several different avenues of examination space and time seem to have an artificiality to them. There is Kant's arguments involving the inherent nonsensical nature of space and time, the samadhi-like realization that space collapses to zero volume, the Zen realization subjectivity is actually motionless, the Gnostis experience of vast quantities of experience being collapsed into physical, etc.

The last does of course dovetail with Dr. Carr's notion of the specious present and I am with him on that being key. Its just that it seems to me that what we are being led to is non-vector-space time rather than multi-dimensional vector-space time. But, these ideas could of course have an equivalence that's not immediately obvious to me.

[ClaudioCunhaPediatra]

Muito bom... To expand our specious presente we need to stop thinking and begin to feel consciousness!!!!

[clarkhardesty]

Very interesting and the general model I find most useful. Carr's 'consciousness' concept seems to me to be very Jungian: collective As the James Webb Space Telescope SEEMS to suggest, the 'big bang' did not occur or did not occur as the beginning of the universe as we see it now. With so much unknown (dark matter/dark energy eg) are we like the fish in a fishbowl. The fish will be the last to discover water you might say. Great presentation.

[Meejateacher]

On the nature of multiple consciousness within one great consciousness can be analogised to sound. There maybe one million year specious moment, a deep bass note, then harmonic resonations of ever shorter time scales within any object that is capable of harnessing resonations. Life and brains, with its two halves is an ideal resonance harnesser with the capability for oscillation. This coupled with the neuronal cascades producing waves allows for lots of resonance play allowing for elasticity and multiple responses (what we call alpha, beta, delta wave etc.). This would mean human consciousness is more developed than say a fly’s consciousness as we have more scope to harness the deeper resonances. As a musician I find this analogy a useful way to perceive consciousness.

[hiyoowihamainza]

Can anyone source that quote by Price? "“We inhabit two worlds simultaneously, the world of common experience governed by physical law and another space, quite as real, which obeys other laws….continuous dream-life goes on throughout our waking hours and occasionally we may catch a glimpse of it."

[fritzelnar]

Made me think so much of "Stalking the Wild Pendulum" by Itzhak Bentov.

[namero]

How can Carr's concept be reduced and made more intuitive to grasp? If instead of 5 we postulate 3+1 dimensions, then I can see myself standing in the same spot for an hour, and the me at the beginning is at the same time the same and different than the me at the end, all other properties being equal (such as my location)... So in 5d we have spacetemporal freedom, plus an extra dimension where the same conscious entity effectively splits. Does this make sense?

[samrowbotham]

Snake Symbolism comes up quite often in Hinduism they have the idea of Linga Sarira (sometimes spelt Sharira) according to some researchers this body could be represented as a snake over time, the idea of movement along with time and space being maya an illusion.

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of
human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with
facts established by experiment."
Bernard d'Espagnat

“Most physicists are very naive; most still believe in real waves or real particles.”
Anton Zeilinger

[MeRetroGamer]

Undeniably, there's "experientiality".

There *exists* an experiential reality, and it is structured. We could call this structure "the dimensionality of the cosmos/universe" (or space-time in our own limited view).

So there's universal experientiality (or Consciousness), but experiences are structured (or "localized").

The reason for why your perspective is separate from mine is just the same reason for why your present perspective is separate from your past or future perspective. It's all about structure, it's all about how experiences are related among themselves.

[aurora]

Prof Carr poses the main question: Consciousness with a big C either does or does not exist. Interesting to observe that none of the panel members commented on that, even though it is the key issue, since everything else derives from that...

[citizizen]

1) Sometimes in dreams, we experience stuff that is special. Are our dreams special? I think that we are used to certain phenomena and because of it, we miss stuff, just because of that. I.e. the use of certain sciences/philosophies are done 'naively'. These sciences and philosophies being there merely for keeping all stuff working. Which indicates that we would not be used to it. The peculiar thing then is: we are not used to that use. This unuse may be something new in culture. Something which might create new industries of note.
2) Our intelligence Is always compatible with consciousness and has recurrent in character (a can be extended with b (hierarchies..)).
3) Nothing is used twice. However true or not. In the future concessions seem to be there because we do want to take up science and philosophy
4) Our intelligence is managed by unconsciousness's. These uc's work with reservoirs that we might utilize ourselves. Note: ==> with our imagination we can work and with a couple of tricks, one can work with this reservoir. Learning calculus for example (instead of stumbling upon this oneself).

[zebonautsmith]

But isn't "dreamspace" a false space merely constructed from within the mind?