Physicist argues about consciousness | Sean Carroll and Lex Fridman

Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:

GUEST BIO:
Sean Carroll is a theoretical physicist, author, and host of Mindscape podcast.

PODCAST INFO:

SOCIAL:

[LexClips]

Guest bio: Sean Carroll is a theoretical physicist, author, and host of Mindscape podcast.

[dagfinnhessenpaust]

Our conscious experiences are "just words"? Even as a metaphor, that makes no sense.

[tbucker]

The way these guys talk about consciousness makes me wonder if they're philosophical zombies.

[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 .
My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs used to approximately describe underlying physical processes, and that these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities. Consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property.

Preliminary considerations: 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. 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, a cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept.

Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness.
(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).

From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists 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 can be identified with 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.

Some clarifications.

The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. 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 (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality.

Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property.
Actually, 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. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience.

My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that such scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness.

Marco Biagini

[cyclingseth]

Lex you need to have Bernardo Kastrup on your podcast

[grasshoppa]

I always enjoy Sean’s clear rational explanations.

[apalomba]

The existence of god is wrong? Sean Carroll's arrogance is amazing. It also amazes me that someone so smart can have such little insight to anything beyond the material world. I guess that is what makes him feel safe.

[freethinkish]

Please, Sean, have a discussion with Bernardo Kastrup.

[jaz]

I dont think sean understands the subject because he starts off thinking its people who are afraid of death and are coping. Thats not it, nor where people are coming from. And when Sean says he has a way to explain who you are as a person through neurons, he does not get it.

[OuroboricIdealism]

Time is not a exclusively concept: time is an a priori form of our sensibility (along with space) — meaning that time is the very form of sensibility, such that were there no time there would be no experience possible.

[OuroboricIdealism]

Naïve realist materialism is not compatible with modern physics: as writes Eugene Wigner, in his essay ‘Remarks on the Mind-Body Question’, while “Solipsism may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics, monism in the case of materialism is not”; as stated Max Planck, in Das Wesen der Materie (a speech given in 1944, in Florence, Italy), “my research on the atom has shown me that there is no such thing as matter in itself”; and, as affirmed Werner Heisenberg, in his Das Naturgesetz und die Struktur der Materie, “modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language”.

In what sense is naïve realist materialism incompatible with modern physics? In the sense that experiments like the double-slit experiment have shown that particles behave like waves when not subjected to measurement or observation: the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics insists that there is a collapse of the wave function upon measurement or observation thereof (so that the wave function collapses upon its being measured or observed), such that it is allowed that a cat in a box is not in a determinate state until the box is opened and its contents measured or observed. Proponents of the Many-Worlds Interpretation, however, may insist that there is no wave function collapse, and that all possible configurations of systems have a constitutive existence, if only in independent universes; however, it should be noted that the theory that there exist many universes independent of each other is egregiously a petitio principii fallacy. Defenders of the Many-Worlds Interpretation may argue that it is not circular reasoning to argue for the existence of many universes, because the conclusion of many worlds follows from or is implied by the application of mathematical equations; however, all the same, it is a petitio principii to suppose, not only that there are many empirically-unverifiable worlds, but that the math and logic that holds for this universe holds equally for and tells us something about other universes which we cannot possibly know or have any access to empirically (if equations hold for this universe, this tells me nothing concerning whether they hold for other hypothetical universes, so that to assume that theories developed by man in this world hold for and apply to other unknowable hypothetical worlds, indisputably, is circular reasoning all the same).

But, further, when I run the double-slit experiment and note its results (or when I experiment in general), what do I have to do with if not my own Vorstellungen? In the words of George Berkeley, “what do we perceive besides our own ideas or sensations? and is it not plainly repugnant that any one of these, or any combination of them, should exist unperceived?” (namely, what I entitle the “wave function” is, in Hume’s terminology, an idea in my own consciousness, and the results of any experiment I happen to run, again, in Hume’s terminology, amount to impressions). As stated Hume “To begin with the senses, ’tis evident these faculties are incapable of giving rise to the notion of the continu’d existence of their objects, after they no longer appear to the senses. For that is a contradiction in terms, and supposes that the senses continue to operate, even after they have ceas’d all manner of operation”. In a word, it is a non sequitur fallacy to argue for the existence of a mind-independent thing-in-itself (whether a mind-independent wave function (what I call the “wave function” being, in Hume’s terminology, an idea), mind-independent determinate matter, or whatsoever other mind-independent x you postulate) given only my consciousness and its attendant Vorstellungen; ipso facto, there can be no argument for a mind-independent thing-in-itself that is not a non sequitur, since all it is technically possible to know is consciousness and its attendant Vorstellungen. There is no experiment I can run, and there is no interpretation I can give of its results, which will enable me to pronounce concerning anything other than my own consciousness and its attendant Vorstellungen, since all I know is the activity of my own consciousness and its attendant Vorstellungen (I refer the reader to the analysis of instrumentalism given above). Just as much as it is a non sequitur fallacy to argue for the existence of a mind-independent thing-in-itself given only my consciousness and its attendant Vorstellungen, so too is it a non sequitur fallacy to argue for the existence of other minds given only my consciousness and its attendant Vorstellungen. Not to mention that, since all it is technically possible to know is our own consciousness and its attendant Vorstellungen, it is a petitio principii to affirm the existence of either a mind-independent thing-in-itself or other minds, let alone a mind-independent wave function (although, if by “mind-independent wave function” we mean “sheer indeterminacy”, perhaps we can say that such a wave function, such “sheer indeterminacy”, exists beyond my own consciousness, since, as Kant argued, because the a priori forms of the understanding and of our sensibility determine our Wahrnehmungen, granting Kant’s transcendental idealism, we can reasonably insist that whatsoever is mind-independent necessarily must be indeterminate and un-conditioned (not conditioned by either the a priori forms of our sensibility or of the understanding), though this is practically to say that whatsoever is mind-independent is nothing to us).

Much like Copernicus undermined geocentrism with his heliocentric account, impartial criticism, unbiasedly applied, undermines the thesis that “my Vorstellungen are not my Vorstellungen” (namely, impartial criticism, unbiasedly applied, undermines, invariably and inevitably, a naïve realist materialism (to say nothing of the fact that naïve realist materialism undermines itself by way of entailing, egregiously, a contradiction in terms)). Incidentally, it must be said, the Copernican heliocentric thesis is perfectly compatible with a Kantian empirical realism: Kant insisted, per his empirical realism (and in opposition to transcendental realism), that objectivity is to be determined, not according to the correspondence of our Wahrnehmungen to mind-independent things-in-themselves (transcendental realism), but according to the conformity of our Wahrnehmungen to the a priori forms of the understanding and of our sensibility.

[frankjspencejr]

The notion that consciousness is just a description of what you are doing when you’re experiencing red etc. has been debunked many years ago. It’s called behaviorism. Consciousness is definitely more than just a description of what someone is doing. It is feeling like something to be “doing” (experiencing) something. And physicalism has no need nor explanation for it.

[frankjspencejr]

Deluded talk about illusions and delusions. A false idea is a delusion. A false impression about what you are seeing/sensing is an illusion. Consciousness itself cannot be an illusion. Everything within consciousness can be an illusion, but you cannot falsely experience that you are experiential. Simply nonsense.

[unodos]

Jesus, Lex... imagining a thing, then building it... isn't an illusion. It's an idea that leads to action. An illusion would be thinking you see that you have the materials to build the thing, you start, and then you realize that you never had the materials in the first place. Lex sticks to lexicon like a freshman in college lol

[My_King_KM]

Religion and science are best understood through the pragmatic lens. What do they do? What technique best performs at a certain level of analysis?

You'll find they're both useful within their respective domains.

[jacksmith]

8:40 woah has never been proved either way, ...that statement was illusion

[MikeWiest]

He admitted he has no basis for his opinion that current physics with no additions can account for consciousness. He just has a hunch, though he hasn’t studied the subject, so to speak 😊

[srinivasanp.b]

This man is not truthful in his words. I don't know why, but I just feel it.

[youtubebane]

I used to think Sean Carroll was smart but now I'm kind of doubting that because if one is the only thing that could explain reality cuz nothing is completely material or solid matter there is no such thing as solid matter so it's all information and energy that means it's all part of the Mind nothing would carry meaning to where it would be something that was understood or meant something to do anything without there being a mind to understand it because there would be no reason for it and as I said there is nothing material in the universe at all it is almost complete emptiness with little points of vibration and energy Ben Fields all of this is created out of nothing that's basically just from laws and information and forces alone all of these things have to be fine-tuned and directed and all of the values of each thing have to be calculated and balanced. You're just missing the basic picture itself that information is the very Fabric and structure of reality and something had to create this information it cannot have just come into being a book does not write itself. Furthermore everything in reality has its very own identity and definition of what it is while its definition might be shared with other things its identity is not and that bit of information cannot be blended into any of the other bits of information so it all has to be differentiated in separated and organized. Furthermore the information has to be recorded in the first place so this stuff can be created because it all starts out as an idea or a concept. But the universe or creation as itself is a Unity or a Continuum it's a singular thing and although it is one impotent field of awareness or mind it is not a consciousness at the Consciousness is something more limited to one point or one position within time and space with a given amount of matter and energy or whatever data associated with it where are the cases is quantized and focused and it's in motion whereas the field of mind that is the foundation of all existence is infinite and continuous in absolutely Motionless Andy's in almost every single way mathematically equivalent to zero or absolute nothingness which is actually the largest Infinity there is it's the largest set of all infinite sets and it's the largest thing you can even imagine to exist and it's what gives rise to everything else. Mine is not separate from physics is the information that mine contains that gives rise to all the laws of physics and everything else and all the quantum field electromagnetic field all those things are fields that are generated from mind. Now all the things that mine had recorded and and learned had to have been learned just like we have to learn things there's no way around that no matter if you're a gigantic universal mind or if you're a God or if you're a human and the only way you can learn these things is by learning them. Or experiencing them I should say but when you are a Unity that doesn't really have any existence and can't move or anything as the infinite mind is then you have a little problem especially since there's an infinite number of things that you must learn and you are one. So the only way you can do that is to divide yourself up into an infinite amount of finite units that can be further divided up into an infinite amount of infinitesimals where is singularities that hold within each one of themselves a whole another universe or Infinity that's from the inside is the infinite volume. Matter in in mind are not separated matter is mind mind is the foundation and the force that is broadcasting the signal and frequency that's manifesting as matter to our awareness . There is no such thing as comes first considering that there is no time outside of the universe as it applies to us and time is only our illusion that we experience moving through the four-dimensional time-space Continuum we are in and the fourth dimension being the temporal Dimension that we experience as a present moment of now and time flowing. This is all necessary for Consciousness to learn all the things that need to learn so mind can be taught all the things that needs to know so it can create itself. Consciousness is just mind manifesting itself as a temporal Singularity so we can have our present moment of now and have locality within SpaceTime so we can have mattered form movement and growth. I thought Sean Carroll was smart I just found out he's a Materialist or whatever he said is which means That he's an absolute moron As his own science experiments and Mathematics has proven Long and long time ago that there's nothing material in this universe it is all almost complete emptiness with vibrating points of energy as its only Objects and then these are not material Period Consciousness does not require you to change the laws of physics it's what Gives the laws of physics to reality it's what has thought up the laws of physics Period God this dude really disappoints me I've heard him So many times when he seen halfway smart and now My estimation of him is gonna be forever tarnished

[smalin]

That something is "just a concept" is just a concept.