Sean Carroll - Physics of Consciousness

How to explain our inner awareness that is at once most common and most mysterious? Traditional explanations focus at the level of neuron and neuronal circuits in the brain. But little real progress has motivated some to look much deeper, into the laws of physics — information theory, quantum mechanics, even postulating new laws of physics.

Sean Carroll is Homewood Professor of Natural Philosophy at Johns Hopkins University and fractal faculty at the Santa Fe Institute. His research focuses on fundamental physics and cosmology.

Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[rochford]

Don't you enjoy listening to these guy's verbally thrash out their differences, so much passion!!

[lettersquash]

This was brilliant. I've not heard someone talk so well about a physicalist position on consciousness. It was kind of funny watching Robert Kuhn respond from an irresistible dualist position, although Carroll perhaps set him up for that by agreeing with the idea of being able to "upload yourself". His explanation of the detail refutes that, at least as it relates to how that expression is usually thought of (because it is inherently dualistic, suggesting that there's an entity, "your self", that is put somewhere else). With that bubbling around in Kuhn's unconscious, he can then start imagining that the new copy being "identical" must mean it has Carroll's unique personhood, hence he's confused because then he thinks there are two Sean Carrolls. If he just thought about disassembling an apple molecule by molecule, yet copying each into a new apple, he'd not argue that the two apples being "identical" are therefore just one apple in two places. They're necessarily made of different actual atoms; only their type and arrangement are identical.

So really, you can't "upload yourself" because you have no "self", but you can copy the physical state to create a facsimile. Actually, all the neurons isn't enough, since a brain unsupported by a body will die immediately, and one without any senses won't have a similar conscious experience, so the whole body would need to be copied. And immediately, it would begin having different experiences.

[Ed-quadF]

Sooo much fun. Put a smile on my face, literally and figuratively.

[robertbaher]

I really enjoy listening to Sean Carroll. He can take a seemingly complex subject and relate it to the viewer in simple understandable terms.

[edwardprokopchuk]

This was actually pretty comprehensive and one of the better and simpler conversations about consciousness.

[Wouldntyouliketoknow]

I think I can elaborate a bit on Sean's position. Each moment in time is another you, having a different "now" experience.
All "now" moments have state (i.e the configuration of the universe in that moment) that is consistent with that moments "now" state being related to a prior moments "now" state, as described by a transformation permitted by the laws of physics.
You could imagine that like a jigsaw puzzle, all these moments, like puzzle pieces, were all cut together in one stroke. Therefore one did not derive from another, they were all derived together to be consistent with the laws of physics.
You are experiencing one "now" moment. The order thing called time you are experiencing is just that this is the only thing we can derive from any given now moment that we find ourselves experiencing. If the universe jumped between states of you being a baby, and then you being an adult, you would know nothing of this jump; in both instances you would be aware of being a baby with complete set of memories and state consistent with that experience; and likewise for the instant where you are an adult yod have the memories of a lifetime consistent with that experience.

So what does it mean if your brain was uploaded into a computer?

Your set of "now" moments where you were a human are all possible experiences. Another set of "now" moments for the conciousness happening in the computer is abother set. In fact in anything where conciousness arises - this adds to the set of "now" moments that can be experienced. This set now includes me, and you and everyone we have ever met.
So why am I feeling like I am me right "now" and not "you" or my brain uploaded into the "computer"?
Well.. how can we be so sure we are not also those things - we can only ever experience a "now" moment, I have no idea who I was experiencing a moment ago. According to this "now" moment I am presently writing a youtube comment. I have memories consistent with this. I feel like I have been sat here 10 minutes.. but so would you if you were experiencing this "now" moment. Who is to say you are not? Language lets me down here because terms like "you" and "I' are ambiguous. The total set of all "now" moments for concious being will be experienced, and when they are, that experience will result in something that thinks its an entity with an identity that is flowing in time.

[flappoid]

Kuhn made some very strong points. Sean was way more relaxed in his responses, Kuhn seemed a bit rattled and shaky with his questions and points, but still posed very cogent challenges to the "absoluteness" of Sean's position. Bottom line for me in all of the discussion of consciousness is that we'll probably not figure it out any time soon. By far the most animated CTT I've ever seen.

[crizish]

I don’t always agree with Sean, but he really is a great physicist and a fabulous speaker.

[dntfrthreapr]

The waitress comes over and says: "ok, I'ma have to ask you to leave"

[asyetundetermined]

Robert: “What happens to you??”

Sean: “You becomes us.”

Robert: 🤯

[seraphiusNoctis]

I think the movie “The Prestige” gives an interesting take on this. The surviving clone always is the one who never experienced their own death. It doesn’t matter if consciousness does not “jump”, it doesn’t need to- as the survivor will have the continuous subjective experience that includes everything up to the branch.

[faulypi]

From the moment the new Sean is activated, it becomes a completely separate conscious entity. Initially, its responses may closely mirror those of the original Sean, but over time, their experiences will diverge, leading to distinct consciousnesses. This is because consciousness is shaped by individual experiences and interactions, which cannot be identically replicated. Understanding that each consciousness is unique, even if they share an origin, is key to grasping this concept. The divergence is inevitable as each entity encounters different stimuli and processes them independently.

[camdenbarkley]

In Robert’s neuron copy scenario: by what Robert means by “you”, the original dies. By what Sean means by “you”, it lives on in the copy. I’m a physicalist, and it’s hard even for me to not talk dualistically about “self”. Sean seems to have mastered it.

[svendtang]

Jean nailed the conscious wooo woo in my opinion and in the opinion.. it’s clearly an evolutionary advantage ( and as many evolutionary advantages also have not so good side effects) .. I have no portion thinking I’m different from yesterday and still a evolution of me

[XOPOIIIO]

If you have a copy of the same program on two devices, which one is the "real one"? Consciousness is just sort of a program. If there are identical copies of the same consciousness they would be working independently from each other but in similar way until they diverge over time.

[kainajones]

Difference between the experience, and a description of the experience

[brandon]

Doesn’t this thought experiment beg the question by presupposing some kind of dualism?

If they are physically identical to humans in every way, then they will necessarily have the same physical properties such as consciousness.

If you have two identical people separated by spacetime, they will necessarily have different conscious experiences. If they are not separated by spacetime, then they’re indistinguishable from a single person.

What am I missing?

[marcusantebi]

Sean is a dedicated physicalist and an accomplished physicist. I believe that the concept of 'consciousness' may not be within his area of expertise. It's similar to hearing a cardiologist discuss sports nutrition. Consciousness is a profoundly intricate phenomenon that surpasses simplistic explanations. Moreover, the central question remains: what triggers the onset of consciousness, by what mechanism? As of now, science has not provided a definitive explanation for this. Hence, this conversation delves into the realm of the unknowable.

[Jinxed]

I think Sean made one mistake. He chose one of the copies to be "him". That implies there's something special about the him that's in his brain. If you're a pure materialist, the feeling of individuality is produced by the brain. Each copy would feel itself to be him, but it wouldn't be a shared feeling, and each copy (in a purely materialist viewpoint) would be correct. Our memories are key to who we feel we are. Any brain imbued with an exact copy (to date) of every memory we have stored in our brains would sidle those memories with the consciousness it produces, and in turn, believe themselves to be us, but that's purely an internal feeling held by every copy, as well as the original. All of them would be a separate "you".

[Michael-ntme]

Considering the

Unfolding Conscious Actuality of ...Phenomenology, Metaphysics and Conscience.... coming forth and going forward.