Bernardo Kastrup: Proof of Consciousness 

Is consciousnesses a material or spiritual phenomenon? 🧠

Kastrup is no doubt one of the more important thinkers of our time. It’s great to see him appearing on this channel. 👌

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

"the map is not the territory." -alfred kobzybski (i got to use this quote in youtube comments twice in one week!)

Hype, even Koch came out as idealist in Tuscan, last month.

Best description of consciousness I ever heard. Emphasizes the internal aspect over external observation. Very insightful thinking here.

It would be better for the society if scientists and other domains listen with open mind to this guy. He could be wrong but if he is right we go to a different level of understanding

Conciousness is not only being aware or awareness. Is dreaming, fundamental to consciousness, or does consciousness arise from dreaming?

The Oracle from our Veldhoven! Bernardo has a unique quite sharp and sobering view on things. What kind of bothers me (and Bernardo kind of hints at that) is that our so called experts on neurosciences, still appear to think that base consciousness requires neurons to begin with. As I stressed so many times; I wish they had a look at the many youtube posts of lacrymaria; a fierce and tenacious hunter, extremely aware of its surroundings. Lacrymaria has no Neurons. It is a single cell creature. So by definition Neurons are no prerequisite for base consciousness. Meta consciousness might require it. Perhaps. But the real question we must first expand upon is; is whatever constitutes base consciousness seated solely in the tiny spacetime cocoon of an individual Lacrymaria? Looking at the complex behaviour of this tiny miracle of creation our default answer should be ‘no’. the main physical tool for this would then be Lacrymaria’s microtubiles which offer the potential of quantum coherence. And Quantum coherence in turn would offer a means of neuron-like connectivity we call entanglement. Entangling literally countless other lacrymaria anywhere in the universe to create what we call base-consciousness in individual samples. The work of Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff on microtubiles is the most promising new path for anyone interested in consciousness. There are two types of grids. It is about time we think of that. I wish the discussion on consciousness would focus on these phyisical facts first and only then speculate into the yet unknown.

The instrument is not the note The orchestra is not the symphony The wires are not the electricity The brain is not the mind The universe is not the math Consider: The Slime Mold and the Abacus A computer is a fancy abacus. No matter how many beads or rungs or other fancy “connections “ are made a computer has more in common with an abacus than a human brain. A slime mold has more understanding than all computers. A human brain is a fancy slime mold. The human brain has more in common with a slime mold than it does with a computer. The abacus can never hope to be a slime mold. An abacus can never hope. A computer will not likely ever be a brain. A computer will be the tool of a brain. An abacus owes its existence to a slime mold more than the slime mold owes its existence to an abacus. This does not means that a computer will not out calculate, “outsmart “ a human brain but that a computer will never “know” or “ understand “ unless it first becomes aware. Awareness is the seed of consciousness. Understanding is the fruit of consciousness. // The Slime Mold and the Abacus A computer is a fancy abacus. A human brain is a fancy slime mold. A slime mold has more understanding than all computers. No matter how many beads or rungs or other fancy “connections “ are made a computer has more in common with an abacus than a human brain. Anthropomorphism is saying the slime mold is the equivalent to the human. The slime mold is not equivalent to the human but the slime mold is living. Comparing living with non living things is not anthropomorphism. Observation is not interpretation. Anthropomorphic features are not entirely incongruous with life. A slime mold is more human like than a rock. // "Dans les champs de l'observation le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés", meaning "In the fields of observation, chance only favours the prepared mind." Quote: Louis Pasteur What can prepare a computer? Data? What are humans doing in observation that computers are not? It is not incongruous with the great difference between energy uses of brains vs computers. A brain is not a computer as we understand computers. It is more like an orchestra. Vibrating, resonanting , etc. How does a savant know without knowing how they do it? Everything is recorded but not everything is recalled. The understanding of information in our brains exceeds all computer’s capacity to understand.

I'd love to see Kastrup and Donald Hoffman talking consciousness.

Consciousness is not unlike things we see around us that seem similar. Everyone knows animals express some 'human like' behavior or 'sentiments'. Consciousness is a permission slip with each expressing capacity in accordance with its role. As far as 'let us make man in our image'...this is what made the angels jealous. The 'seed of man' has gifts that others may not and in my opinion the world we are living in demostrates this very thing. Consciouness is not based in the brain. There isnt nearly as much soveriegnty associated with consciousness as people prefer to believe. The brain is an interface and there is a delay as 'thinking' is transferred from one place to the other. Those who are positioned properly can 'see' what you think...and respond to it... before you even realise what that is yourself

📍5:59 2📍 6:51

The last 30 yr most of what I've witnessed being studied I can't place in the physical perception category.. I personally think 1900s confused a lot of things trying to label everything physical along with educaters ease of access wanting on paper step by step logic to look better than actually how well in practice or excersize such ordering skills perform. Population species is one of these foundational tools where the slightest variations can make even experts talk past each other. These are projected into other avenues that increases much of our division where we lack indentefiers to hold accountable on. Imo everything that jwst is tasting in the stars and cmb to a degree only makes sense objectively and not physically. I don't have any issues with hamiltonian oscillating waves subjective properties correlated with idealized time it makes more sigma 6 sense to me than it does from the hieseberg physical approach where uncertainty tells us our pov perception just goes against the grain of nature's orientation and direction . Announcing when something is truly physical or when we need to prescribe realism over some anti realism is more than acceptable when it's rogerously debated and tested or atleast brings credible value..

Free will is the ability to choose willingly or unwillingly of that which is in front of you that you are aware of.

Bro stormed off when Tim Maudlin called him out lol

And nothing about free will was said. Nice clickbait.

P_max function for general relativity maximal power = (Universe mass((0.66.. open window units))/(s^3)) opens the imagination to Einstein's forte, a math formala for mankind to understand God's mind.

This was so kool even for a dummy like myself .

तत् त्वम् असि

Infinity is something that we can't fully explain using physical means, yet we know that it must exist. For example, if the universe were not infinite, it would have a border. And if the space beyond the universe also had a border, then the same principle would apply, creating an endless cycle. This ultimately leads to the concept of "Physical Infinity," which is a paradoxical idea. And, one can't accept physical infinity while rejecting metaphysical ideas like consciousness without being hypocritical.

there is no objective proof of consciousness neither a subjective proof its the subject that is proof by itself but as long as the subject is caught in the illusion of a me, you, him its unaware of the oneness of consciousness there is no freedom in unawareness

Consciousness as a word is crude and ill-defined.. Most mysteries drop away once we begin to think of so-called "consciousness" as only AWARENESS of our environment.. I believe materialism/naturalism explains awareness.. One opinion.

People make the same Category error when they ask who created God! Confusing God with its creation.

can't figure it out? just claim it's 'irreducible'. bam, done 😆

"Proof of free will"? where? I think you are intellectually dishonest at this point. Firstly you spend a lot of time with Sam Harris without understanding what he is saying, then you interview Bernardo( Who believes the free will concept is incoherent) and you use his argument to support whatever you think or to clickbait. Please, apply some critical thinking and honesty to your work as a podcaster.

This man is a living contradiction.