Lothar Schafer - Does Consciousness Cause the Cosmos? 

Precise use of language to describe reality. I love it. Especially at the end of this clip where he says " We cannot exclude a (sort of ) cosmic consciousness." With the proviso of the limitations previously mentioned. That is human consciousness is not required.

I love how on the last 2 minutes he stumbles and goes agaisnt everything he just said in the rest of the video. The background of all is consciousness. Cosmic. Interdimensional. Multidimensional. Multiversal. Beyond our understanding of time. Beyond space. The connecting trunk of the structure of all reality.

It's interesting how the deeper they get into the conversation of consciousness and it's effects on creation the more religious and divine the discussion becomes in general.

The notion that the material features of the universe would have any purpose or reason for existing without the co-existence of life, mind, and consciousness to see, feel, hear, smell, and taste those features, is as ridiculous as thinking that the phenomenal features of a dream would have any purpose or reason for existing without the co-existence of the dreamer of the dream.

Consciousness is fundamental .the brain is a filter. its main function is to restrict consciousness down to the tiny little illusion of self and non self.

That's the best explanation of the quantum realm I've ever heard

What if a particle in a vacuum behaves as a wave because it has no way of verifying its position or state in the universe? It requires an interaction with something else to determine what it is to itself. If that was true then there may be a sort of universal consciousness where all matter is conscious to some extent (be it a very low level of consciousness). Life and humans being the most complex form of consciousness that we know of to emerge over time. Humans are similar in that if you kept a human in a dark room from birth, then the complex consciousness we experience would never emerge from them, they would have no interaction with others to reflect their place in the universe. There is no such thing as 'life' really, just things happening within the universe. From that perspective it makes sense that all matter could be on some level 'conscious'.

Very honest and trustworthy separating known and unknown. Good work, Robert!

He's 84? Wow. Stay sharp Lothar.

'The background of the universe is mind-like' What does that mean?

Yes

in the context of cosmic consciousness, I agree that these waves are information algorithms... In the double split experiment, the character of the particles changes into waves when observed with a camera and vice versa, when the camera is off, it is as if these particles know and are aware that they are being investigated, so that Robert Lowrence Kuhn (Closer to truth) came to the hypothesis that our consciousness forms this reality

I still don’t understand where the distinction is between the wave function and the environment.

The language, is the language of ancient philosophy, forms, actialities, ......extraordinary.

The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave! Nicola Tesla states, “If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency, and vibration” Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles, and creates our experience-able Universe. Max Planck states: "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness". Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely. We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment. Our job is to make it interesting!

Maybe we shouldn’t say that it is wrong, the fact that my body exists, I think it has been thoroughly observed long before my conscious is conscious of itself.

Life is the Universe's way of knowing itself

Information is meaningless without consciousness. Actions and interactions happen because there is an observed present to subjectively experience them, they do not happen if there is no observer. There has always been an observer in one form or another. The observer is the function from which information, particles, events, actions, and interactions take place. Information, particles, matter, actions, interactions, and events do not exist unless there is an observer. Without an observer, the state of the universe is a void of oblivion. Without subjectivity, nothing happens. We like to think that the material universe that we inhabit is the foundation from which consciousness arises. When in fact this material universe is the effect of consciousness itself. Only an observer assigns properties, calculates mass and velocity, describes actions, records time, etc. The fact that we can deduce the time of the universe and what it must have been like in the past is only possible because someone or something has done this before we started doing it. Whether it is another species on some other planet or some grand collective consciousness, is irrelevant. "Witness me, I shall ride, eternal, shiny, and chrome..."

No surprise the wave function symbol is a PSI greek letter. PSI Means Mind! Schrodinger was a genius

Very interesting thoughts. Thank You.

Consciousness is everything and out of consciousness comes everything else. Time is not linear, time is a single moment of NOW, with infinite layers of dimensions. Space/distance is an illusion. There is a single point/location, HERE and this explains Einstein's Spooky Action at a Distance. We are HERE NOW. 💥

I love this guest

How would you know what happens with particles and waves without conscious awareness to perceive and take inventory of the events? The assertion that “there’s no consciousness involved” in the behavior of particles and waves doesn’t withstand basic scrutiny. The real problem here is that there are two scientists trying to solve a philosophical problem and doing a very poor job of it.

Consciousness is observation, the Cosmos is information, they are intertwined.

This feels like a real step. Something solid that is as yet, a partially materialized thought about the nature of truth.

When either, the pattern in the cosmic mind or the pattern in the human mind, in the invisible realm of forms, interact with the environment, empirical forms are actualised.

Hey, let's not let our egos get carried away!

We need to leave behind our anthropomorphic biases regarding consciousness. Everything interacts, and so everything is conscious.

Physics and metaphysics explains reality, consciousness is one of the set of metaphysics that creates life and consciousness, intelligence, intuition, faith etc, all are metaphysics.

This is such a simple explanation of such a complex question. Very helpful!

Poor Scientists! they try so hard to separate Consciousness from "Hard Science"... but to no avail!

He is just describing Plato’s Forms. Plato’s (invisible, non-empirical) Forms are emergent productions from the receptacle of matter-the infinite prima materia (prakriti in Sanskrit) that consisted of chaotic forces (not particles) acting against one another. This prima materia was called Substance. Substance co-existed with Essence (Plato’s Demiurge). Both comprised a polarity, the unity of which is consonant with Aristotle’s Prime or Unmoved Mover or the Atma/Brahman/Self of Sanatana Dharma, or the One of Plato and the Neoplatonists.

He needs to ask himself, what are those waves made of? I swear he contradicted himself a few times there. The Wigner-Neumann collaboration would disagree with him. Wigner once posited that the ultimate observer has to be consciousness-and not the detectors made of the same fuzzy quanta-in order for collapse to take place. Wigner eventually dropped this for fear that his academic peers would think of him as some kind of weird solipsist. There is also no mention of the quantum eraser experiments of John Wheeler where our observation appears to decide the past. And perhaps a cosmic mind sustains the empirical world! Metaphysical idealism is more parsimonious than materialism and should be the default position. Consciousness is the ground of existence and the ultimate reality. Period.

Not only did consciousness cause the cosmos; consciousness is the cosmos. Consciousness is fundamental. Mind; emerges with quantum events. Cosmic Consciousness in which we share. Mind in which we share. Very different from Darwinism in which all is supposed to arise from biology; from the elements.

I agree with him: The answer to the question is a resounding No. For one thing, our consciousness is not aware or smart enough to even comprehend the nature of the physical reality at its most fundamental level; much less to have created it. Furthermore, there are countless processes that are going on in the Universe that we’re currently not even aware of that could or would eventually manifest themselves in time. The Universe is what gave rise to our consciousness and not the other way around.

I’m finding the others

Consciousness is different from coherency. How different? Well, one must answer the question of the "creation" of the universe by Consciousness by asking; why do we agree on the existence of "things" in the universe? If the universe was there before our consciousness of it, would that explain our agreement? Maybe. I mean babies being born don't change the parents' consciousness of the universe, do they? If, supposedly, the baby's new consciousness re-creates the universe anew?

Imagination is the cause tell me one thing around us that wasn't first only imagined

With or without consciousness matter will exist. What really matters is that it all exists according to laws or rules.

He's pretty stuck on the idea of the interviewer referring to human consciousness specifically, which the interviewer did not insinuate. He can agree on a universal consciousness, but then discounts the infinite intelligence we find outside of mind... which would be universal consciousness. As such, physical reality and universal consciousness are inextricably linked, and his opinion becomes a circular chicken or egg type argument. He doesn't believe human consciousness is the basis for material reality. Okay. Neat. That wasn't the question.

To the eternal question "if tree falls in forest, and there is no one around, does it make a sound?" this guy's answer is a resounding "YES".

As per history of the universe, our brain is created after the creation of the universe, that means everything is there, and that saying is true "we do not need consciousness to create real things". Our senses, see, feel, hear, smell and taste are our windows to this universe, our senses allow us to observe and interact with this world, our brain with its tools (our senses) make our consciousness to this universe, and the universe already existed there and was doing and still doing all its processes consciously. Our consciousness is just a part in this universe.

To misquote Robert Duvall in the movie Apocalypse Now!: "Shröedinger don't surf"

from @5:16 there seems to be something strange with the audio. Two audio channels? Two mics?

you must here distinguish between consciousness and human consciousness otherwise this brings only confusion to the dialog and i hate to say it: but Hegel kind of provides the needed groundwork to...

I'm always fascinated to hear these incredibly brilliant people grapple with these unanswerable metaphysical questions. (No, I don't believe we'll ever be able to answer them.) Take the submicroscopic world that the professor describes. I first heard that description from Roger Penrose but thought I'd misunderstood him. How can the concrete floor I'm standing on be made up of mere mathematical equations? How did the universe itself come to be in the first place? What is it expanding into? Are we alone? Does any of these questions even make any sense, to begin with? My real point is that whatever (or whoever) is behind the universe's existence must have rooted it in inaccessible mystery, or is the supreme master of mischief (or both). As for consciousness, I actually think I (and I alone) know what it is: it's what you experience when you wake up every morning if you've had a good night's sleep:)

Oh yeah we render it just like a computer.

Without consciousness, there is nothing else.

And who created counsciousness?

He first said you don't need consciousness and then admitted the visible world is created by consciousness/cosmic mind but added not human consciousness to keep his stance going. If waves are information then where is that information coming from for the particle to have interactions. If there is no new information then everything will come to a halt.

Also if wave function collapse is meaninglessly random, why would you have any approximations of consistant forms..let alone the ability to ponder anything ? Inertia for one requires the prerequisites, of a form/template/id as a cohesive structure, as well as a time vector that allows for seqeuntial movement. Prior to this, the wave function has not collapsed.

However, that interaction of wave with its environment also needs to be OBSERVED for it to become REAL.

Also you need consciousness to have a non material wave into a material electron. Without consciousness, means a observer it does not happen. It does not exist without consciouness. Without consciousness there not even blankness or void. Everything depends upon consciousness and everything is consciousness.

Whatever caused it we want fairness not unfairness.

Kinda see his point. The reality would depend on the conscious state of ones mind. If it is subconscious thus for every action is an equal opposite reaction the principles of physics. A conscious mind doesn't react rather responds to the present moment. A prime example is we are a reflection of our relationship to the environment. Conscious or unconscious the wave frequency will correspond with the environment.

There is no consciousness and reality. There is only consciousness and consciousness.

Good answer

But isn't the environment a wave function? So a wave function interacting with the environment reduces to a wave function interacting with a wave function... i.e. a wave function?

This sounds precisely like Neoplatonism. What appears to be missing in his analysis is an appreciation that the emanation of Being is apprehended eternally in Consciousness. Universally by Universal consciousness. Particularly by particular conciousnesses.

It's a loop. But "We do not need consciousness to create real things"

Consciousness causes not the Cosmos, but the appearance of the Cosmos

The non local, non empirical mind of God. In the beginning was the word (information) of God. The big bang was a huge influx of information when God said "let there be."

What is the origin of consciousness? Is it humans alone who poses consciousness? Did humans always poses consciousness?

Physical body is matter, ultimately ,it is reduced to subatomic particles and finally transformed into waves.When Consciousness in humans ,will it become human consciousness, in animals ,animal Consciousness ? Consciousness could be more subtler than waves which carries information .What is the medium , these waves are supposed to travel ? or are the waves simply vibrating ?

Now the questions are getting silly.

thought creates form. Not the other way around. - Seth

'Cosmic consciousness' or, the ''omnipresent efficacies called the 'fundamental fields' at every points of spacetime''?

It would be interesting to watch Lothar have a discussion with Don Hoffman or Bernardo Kastrup or Iain McGilchrist

The only relevant question is: ''what is real?'' and the answer is consciousness. Everything else, like matter, is just theoretical.

"Does Consciousness Cause the Cosmos?" We all have the hand in the creation of the Cosmos because we were once ONE WHOLE GOD before He splt Himself into free souls (us) just to have a free family to love and to be freely loved... and this would be impossible to accomplish if we are NOT even aware or conscious as ONE WHOLE GOD... ...this theory that an unconscious waves banging each other randomly without guidance can produce a well organized well fine-tuned Universe, instead of chaotic garbage, is an incoherrent idea that only a Godless erroneous conscience can concoct...

Sound? 💁🏻‍♀️

Physical objects may not need HUMAN consciousness, but to conclude therefore that the physical universe doesn’t need consciousness at all isn’t logical given his admission that the cosmic “background” (whatever that means exactly) may very well be conscious.

You are way overdue to interview Bernardo Kastrup!

A universe without a conscious observer is a meaningless waste. The universe has a purpose and that purpose is to create consciousness. The end result of the universe is that all knowledge is gathered together. Einstein said that there is no matter there is just energy and his equation proved that. Non locality and retro-causality prove that the foundation of all creation is information. The future end result determines the past. The end result is that all knowledge will be gathered from the simulation called this universe.

Love that the answer to the clip title is "no."

Reality Isn't created, reality is just the totality of all existences so material phenomena, consciousness, time, are there to make reality complete and whole. Consciousness is that existence that gives us knowledge of reality therefore material phenomena and time flow along the stream of consciousness if they didn't acknowledgement of their existence would not be possible therefore consciousness is the base existence of reality.

So if human consciousness is a subset of a greater consciousness, maybe it is that - the collective to which we belong - that creates the physical world we see around us. Just a guess.

Awareness is known by awareness alone.

Assuming, yes, consciousness causes the cosmos. What relationship does that consciousness have with the cosmic consciousness many people refer to as God? Is it responsible for all the suffering in the world? 'Stupid thing, you couldn't do better than this?'

Lothar appears to completely ignore quantum entanglement. Which proves the physical objects interact without collapsing the wave function. In fact quantum computers depend on that. The goal of quantum computers is to prevent wave function collapse for as long as possible, while performing massive calculations(physical interactions) There for if the physical world can not collapse the wave function then it must be caused by something non physical. And the only other option is Consiousness.

Hello 👋🏽 Great channel

"They keep each other honest". Wonderful.

Every thing is consiousness

"It from bit"

If the universe is 14 billion years old and humans are only 2 million years old, then there is no need for a human consciousness to create Uranus.

Was the cameraman drunk? Put the camera on a tripod and keep it still.

The idea that human consciousness is not a derivative of the all pervasive background consciousness seems ill conceived. We think of it as a unified field, why would the consciousness aspect of it be anything but unified?

'Thought does not come before form.' Also: Forms are information 🤔😏

Consciousness is a sensory phenomenon. It is a part of the process of interpreting the world. That interpretation is a model which needs reassessment when the model does not work as expected. The model effects behaviour. Any causal effect of consciousness is limited to the extent that consciousness plays in the determining the model. Consciousness does not cause the cosmos.

What if the smaller and smaller you can break the fundamental principles down, the more a force we do not understand, has a more massive effect on said fragments. That way the force coexists with us and is part of ever fragmented. The irony is, it’s as unmeasurable as spirits and angels are to measure. So here we are.🙃🤨🇦🇺🤜🏼🤛🏼🍀☮️☮️☮️

At 3:10 Mr Shafer says; "interaction with the environment creates empirical reality out of non-empirical form." Here's the problem with this line of reasoning; if I label quantum events as taking place in a "non-empirical" setting, it renders the possibility of understanding those events impossible because once the gauge and accepted method of investigating these bizarre and as yet inexplicable quantum events becomes the narrow methodology of empiricism it precludes the consideration of all phenomenon that doesn't fit into this investigative approach. Empiricism is based on the principle that if something can't be weighed, measured or observed in some way it has no possibility of being real. This is dogma, not science. It's like having a Frenchman asking me in his native language how to find a certain address in my hometown, and then after my inability to reply, seeing him drive by several times afterward. If my neighbor asks why the Frenchman keeps driving by and I say "I think he just likes driving his car," I've made a basic error. To extend the analogy, if the reason he needed directions was, and is to get to the hospital where his brother is recuperating from a heart attack, and I continue to see the Frenchman riding by I might say again when my neighbor asks about him that "He's just some fool wasting his time driving in circles", when in reality he is something very different. The confusion stems from the fact that we were speaking two different languages when we briefly spoke earlier. The language and methods of empiricism are simply inadequate, or to put it more accurately "inappropriate" in grappling with questions, and they are valid questions concerning a transcendent reality, and/or the possibility that such a reality exists. Empiricism is based on skepticism and reflexively sees as invalid any way of looking at reality beyond or outside of its restrictive methods. This inherent limitation is valid only when empiricism ventures into realms that can't be circumscribed by its proscribed methods. Love can't be weighed, measured or physically observed but only the cynic would deny it exists. The dry and calculating world of empiricism blinds itself to the possibility of any reality beyond the material world.

Human ego likes to think that existence comes from human consciousness but humans are nothing in the universe

“The background of the universe is mind-like” is a statement I agree with.

Shafer keeps begging the question - assuming what he is meant to be establishing. He keeps talking about ‘the empirical realm’ as if it is a given, which assumes the existence of matter separate from consciousness. But sense perceptions all happen in consciousness: where is this ‘empirical realm’? He is making a basic error of reasoning: his unquestioned belief in matter renders his argument circular.

Why is he confused pls give reasons

He makes a distinction between ‘human’ & ‘cosmic’ consciousness, to assert that ‘human’ consciousness ‘“does not make reality”, then concludes “a background Mind” cannot be rejected. This is the common error in ‘language’ for rejecting ‘all there is, is consciousness’ as THE fundamental-it’s only ‘human Mind consciousness’ that confuses the question of Cosmic Mind Consciousness as fundamental.

Mr Shafer just expressed what I have believed for the past 50 years

Ahhhh, but everything already is in interaction with its environment. So it seems confusing to claim that a wave state will exist only until interaction with environment occurs. How do you ever get to the former? I feel he has unjustly diminished the significance of consciousness. But I'm no expert. I sure enjoy these videos. Keep up the good work.

I couldn't follow what distinction he was making.

You understood something, but you don't u understand ONE IMPORTANT AND SIMPLE THING....