The Living Mirror Theory of Consciousness with Dr. James Cooke | Living Mirrors #2 

How exciting that you’re publishing a solution to the Hard Problem in the #1 academic journal of consciousness! That’s absolutely huge!! I can’t wait to read when it comes out. Congrats!!!!

Idk that the fact that physical injuries effect your conciousness necessarily means that conciousness isn't fundamental and has to be an emergant property of a physical world. Think about debuffs in a video game. They effect the virtual experience of your character but that doesn't mean the experience isn't virtual. Physical injuries could simply impose limitations on your conciousness.

Dear James, I appreciate your work and thank you for this video. However, I have to ask you the question: where exactly does your 'Living Mirror Theory of consciousness' solve or at least circumvent the 'Hard Problem of Consciousness'? In this Video you only give an explanation of »Why« it would be conducive for living organisms to obtain their constitutive form - and resist the second law of thermodynamics - to come up with an inner representation-system of mental states to mirror the sourrounding physical states of the organisms enviroment. But if you remain a metaphysical physicist / materialist, what it seems to me, for example, if you say that the universe is essentially "physical stuff" that lacks inner experience, and that in the first moment where a living cell has formed, a fundamental transition has taken place from basically no consciousness "0" to the consciousness of this first cell "1" ever formed, you have to face the hard problem again, that is, one does not only have to explain why this is conducive to the survival of the organism to have these mental models, but to explain also "how" this mechanism works that leads to inner life. Because you see, If you are a physicalist, that is to deny that conciousness exist in the first place, the Hard Problem is exactly the problem of »How« this transition from "t1 non-conscious" to "t2 conscious" has or could possibly mechanically happen. With best regards. Yannick.

The see'er of seeing can't be seen. The hearer of hearing can't be heard. The know-er of knowing can't be known. That which can't be known by the mind, But that by which the mind is known. Know this to be the witnessing consciousness or the true self. That witnessing consciousness that lights up the mind but the mind can not know. Nothing is ever created, And nothing is ever destroyed. Be as you are everything is already fulfilled and complete.

My friend was listening to this with me and he ended up having a mini episode of psychosis. Well done lol

You've stated brilliantly how evolution takes advantage of consciousness - how the world gets mapped onto an internal representation, but that still doesn't explain why any of those internal representations have any subjective experience at all. Organisms seem to take advantage of the fact that THERE IS consciousness, the same way a bird takes advantage of the surrounding fluid, but the fact that mater has any capacity to feel like anything is still mysterious.

Thanks so much for sharing the body of work you have obviously spent so much time and effort creating, it is really appreciated.

You don't need consciousness to sense the outside world, a robot could do this without experience. Sam Harris explains this argument better than I am, but I find this point elegant and coherent, and much as I love your work to me personally, your theory seems to make an axiomatic error in this regard.

Interesting. I’ve always suspected consciousness arose early in evolutionary history. It’s just too useful.

I Am a Strange Loop.

Fantastic thought provoking video. Thank you. Looking forward to hearing more. I always believed other tiny life forms must be conscious too just in the fact that they will try to stay alive ie attempt to swat a Fly & it quickly evades you. The Fly is conscious it must “keep its form” to survive.

I enjoyed your discussion... thank you! I wonder how ai will progress and will these "androids" we know about...Sophia....attain consciousness?!

Consciousness doesn't "emerge". He's talking about dualistic metaconsciousness, in which sufficiently aware living entities (humans, some intelligent animals, even angels, etc). are aware that "I am aware". Rocks don't have this type of awareness. However, in Rupert Spira's "Consciousness only" model which matches that of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta, the entire universe IS Pure Consciousness. Imagine a vast sea of seamless Consciousness. The ripples and eddies on the surface are metaphorical apparent objects that are mistakenbly though to be separate from the Ocean. No. the ripples and eddies are of the same Substance (Spinoza's term), Pure Consciousness or Sat-Chit-Ananda.

Yes yes I like it at the end when you come around claiming that it looks like the unconscious is just another form of conscience you're really getting somewhere! very very sweet I have heard nobody say that except you of course I don't get around much yeah so I really like this Theory you do give a vague definition of the word Consciousness I would like it to be described more specifically by anybody when they use it so for me if you're referring to Consciousness as awareness that is able to observe its own awareness, which I would also define, but not here too much information, I entirely agree. Discovered you through Michael Levin's post,, because I've been watching every video of him I see thank you very much for this video look forward to learning more about you❤BEM❤

Im already beyond excited just from the name. I had a very similar concept of those words... I'll see if any of my perception and interpretation lines up with yours. Im very very... eXcited

Much food for thought. And I'd love to see you converse with Roger Penrose. But here a pedant's copy-editorial point: the section where you described the molten lava as preferentially reflecting different wavelengths of light (related too to Land's thinking about perceived colour as being a measure of surface reflective properties) ... this is wrong. The experience of the quality of 'colour' of the lava is purely black-body radiation ... i.e. the 'colour'/frequency of electromagnetic radiation emanating (and in the case of lava it is emanating, not reflecting that EMR) is in direct correlation to the temperature of the body and 'yes' a form of 'kinetic energy' through atomic excitation ... but probably (my science here is pretty rusty and rudimentary) more to do with electrons rising and falling through quantum states and emitting corresponding photons of a certain 'frequency' Any body with a temperature high enough to emit 'visible photons' is definitely going to be extremely destructive to life and, therefore, consciousness ;) ... Borecast over!

For Five thousand years the Hindu Vedic Temple has told us Ellam Andre = ALL is ONE! The Universe is within !!! Excellent presenter this guy is right on track kiddos my friend!

A self-driving car could be supplied with the information of when to go get an oil change, order its own parts when necessary, and go to the gas station by itself. Would this vehicle then be considered a conscious, feeling agent?

What if plants, rocks etc. are not only conscious, but MORE conscious than us? If the brain is the filter that filters out immense "cosmic" unitarian consciousness into "bare bones" everyday experience of separation that is necessary for evolutionary survival?

if conciousness is prior to matter then it likely ALWAYS existet for eternity, and this is just a finite dream where we cant comprehend something for nothing or eternal. we may not be able to comprehend it as a person but it could be the truth, that would mean that all time is also an illusion aswell, there is only experience. you have the exact same issue if you say god created Consciousness..... "who created god" after that you must invent something prior to god and then that has another question of what created that then you must come up with something else this continues forever and that point you either have to accept a never ending infinite causal chain or accept the fact that it just existed forever, it was never born and it will never die either. at the end of the day you can prove anything oustdie of your own consciousness, life could just be a dream, i find it funny pretty much all people clain to have dreams and whist in them they are convinced that what they are seeing is real.... that the people are real, the naratives are real and if bear was chasing them theyd run away as if it was real but they never question their "real life" experience or wonder if the same mechanism is at play.

What would you classify the awareness of say two huge planets tugging on each other's gravity, or chemical reactions, etc. Aren't they in a way reacting to the same system? Sorry if this is a stupid question :)

I'm looking forward to reading the paper. Can you let us know as soon as we are able to read? I enjoy knowing that you have a background in neuroscience and definitely look forward to visiting the Surrender Homestead! : )

The lion sees his reflection and suddenly realizes he is not the sheep. But in time he will be convinced he is the sheep having had a lion experience. Free will only exists for individuals. Ego only a belief in separation. Lovely to listen to this explanation. My first lsd experience laid bare😊

As usual, great video. This theory sounds very similar to Dr. Andrew Gallimore's work outlined in his book Alien Information Theory where proto-consciousness emerges from information and builds into more and more complex systems of information until awareness forms. Of course he doesn't stop there as his title suggest the further evolution of information has or will transcend its physical limitations of a materialistic container. My ego wants you to be wrong because I think I am uniquely me, and not a result of cooperative systems determining every experience, thought and action. I can't deny your ideas make sense, and I understand that the ego is a great trait for survival, but my ego wants to disprove this idea of yours. My experiences with DMT have left me with mixed feelings on the matter of consciousness, and extra perceptual systems coexisting within our physical world. On one hand, I have experienced enough through the use of DMT to say that there seems to be a direct correlations to my historical experiences and DMT experiences and for the most part I think "it's all in my head", but on the other hand there are repeatable, predictable, and describable objects/entities which seemingly exist all around us as observed with open eye DMT experiences. I have yet to find a study which has documented or explained these features of DMT open eye entities/objects, but if we pretend for a moment that these "things" are indeed real then how would something like trans-dimensional, coexisting/telepathic beings/technologies fit within your model? Would your model support this idea, or would it void your model?

I'm having trouble understanding the idea of there not being degrees of conscious, that an entity either is or it isn't. Aren't there different capacities for awareness? I would think there are limits to what different consciousnesses are able to encompass. That of human minds is able to take in rather more than a rabbit, for example. I do think rabbits are conscious, but what that awareness is able to be aware of is much reduced compared to us. They probably wouldn't even look twice at drawings on a wall, but we can't help but look and automatically derive some meaning from them. Maybe I'm confusing consciousness with the contents of consciousness, but my feeling is that it takes "more" consciousness to take in more complex and expansive contents, that the hardware the mind is running on can enlarge or reduce the size of the awareness depending on how capable it is. (I feel like mine could do with an upgrade about now lol).

is the consciousness a decoding app for our biological units to perceive an unreal reality

Hi... would you call a star or a planet to be a conscious existence ?

Wonderful James, thank you . Question: - With your model - Is the Biosphere a 'contained life process'. Is the Universe a 'contained life process' ? Using the esoteric model of Sacred Geometry, which Pythagoras reframed as Microcosm-Macrocosm, expanding your model with this in mind we end up with a conscious Universe. In your description the 'single celled conscious organisms' might 'experience' us as their universe, in much the same way as we 'experience' the Universe. eg. lactobacillus 'experiences' the gut biome as their 'world'/biosphere, the human body as their universe.

Thanks James! I've watched a few of your previous vids where you've touched on similar points but good to see them all set out in one place here. Great that you are sharing your ideas with a wider audience and looking forward to hearing you discuss your ideas with others on the podcast.

A lot of this goes over my head but it sounds an awful lot like the law of attraction

I'm gonna have an anxiety attack yet this is completely sensical😂

"you never know your own element" - alan watts

Dr. Your pupils are quite large.

Is it wrong to think of consciousness as different from sense gates? Yes, we need an eye to grant visual data to consciousness, but that doesn't mean the eye is responsible for the consciousness, it's just delivering its results to it.

What do you think of the identity theory?

Nice. I wish you all the best.

that background tho

Very good clear thinking.... Particles-->atoms...molecules...organic...cells...organs...systems...beings. The laws of nature stay the same at all levels.

Quick question: by your theory an amoeba would probably be more conscious than a single human neuron in a dish, because the amoeba can survive a wider range of environmental contingencies than the neuron--so it has to "believe" more stuff. The amoeba also has vastly more genes to maintain itself in a complex environment. The neuron is streamlined for its purpose and so has "nurse" cells (glia) that take over many essential cellular functions. This should make the single human neuron quite a bit less conscious than an amoeba because it doesn't have to "believe" as much to exist. Does that sound right, or am I missing something?

Just a note of correction: red hot objects radiate photons because the kinetic energy boosts electrons to higher energy orbitals and red-spectrum photons are emitted when those electrons fall back into their lower energy orbitals. Increase the kinetic energy and you will get a broader spectrum of photons. Thus, very hot metals radiate white light (as we perceive it, of course). You stated that hot metals reflect long wavelengths of light. More accurately, the light is being emitted, not reflected.

Human egocentricity or realize we are not physically at the center of the creation. Darwin egocentricity however is that we are at the top of the scale of evolutionary complexity.

So you're telling us that maybe not all old relatives were lying their asses off when they said you looked good in that lame shirt? #staywoke #christmassweaterdoesntexistindependently

Anybody else get a Q-Bert Atari vibe while watching this?

What keeps the office tidy is a memory or information or pattern that can be used to reorder the office or even order more identical offices.

Brilliant!

Bravo

Thank you

Similar to my train 🚂 of thought 💭 on consciousness so your on the right track. I look forward to discussing it with you in person one day! If you figure it all out I’ll have to find something else to do with my perceived existence 😊 keep up our good work! ✌🏻 and solidarity

Super interesting, do you know any documentary that touches these subjects?

This idea that you have about a cell having a conciouse experience is right in a way I guess but a skin cell is not self aware it is not thinking. Their is nothing in a cell to experience that pain. The form that it is apart of will feel that pain but not the cell and I don't think other animals have self awareness eaither it's just instinctive conciouse awearness but they are not intelligent enough at a level to be self aware beings like a human being. What makes us humans different from other animals and other life forms is that we are more than just living and conciouse, we have self awearness which is what creates the the experience of being seperate from one another.

I appreciate your effort and your calm and clear way of explaining things but I think you are probably wrong. Simple life doesn't need an internal model of the outside world, it can survive on reflexes that evolve through natural selection. Reflexes are automatic, mechanical reactions. They don't need to be organized or directed. The stings of a nettle for instance, are activated when touched, that is a mechanism that needs no model of the outside world, it reacts like a mouse trap reacts to the mouse. We know internal models in complex brains can exist but even these don't have to be conscious. When a cat sees a mouse disappearing behind a chair, there probably appears a model of the room in the brain of the cat. It may run a simulation of the mouse running behind the chair so it can predict that it will appear on the other side. But this whole simulation proces can be automatic, a computer can do it too. Soon we will have self-driving cars that operate on a combination of models/simulations of the world and reflexes. So the cat may not be conscious and even though it can experience things, it needs not be conscious of the experiences. I think consciousness comes into being when a being with a brain starts to create models of its own thinking. When it starts to think 'can I make a model of me' and 'who is thinking this' and 'who am I'. A sign of this happening in animals is when they recognize themselves in a mirror. I think it is unlikely that a bird fighting with its own reflection has consciousness. So I assume that all consciousness is self-consciousness. When an AI can ask questions and make models about its own thinking and identity, I think it will develop consciousness. Unfortunately that means that there is nothing spiritual about it. Although it explains separation: there is now an assumed (modeled) 'I' to whom things happen. Also, the self-referencing model that consciousness is, may have some unpredictable side effects in the brain that can explain why consciousness is so important in spiritual experiences.

I don’t read that much so sorry if this comment is stupid but if you were to clone me, using the exact atoms that are in my body, and stick the other being five feet away from myself, that being would not be me. Therefor my consciousness is a result of the exact amount of atoms, not just living cells within my body. Or if you believe that my brain is the only necessary thing for consciousness, or just my neurons, that would still hold. I don’t know what that means in regard to your theory but perhaps consciousness is a property of existence itself and not just biological life. I am not a fancy scientist so I can think this and not get yelled at by my scientist peers who think only matter is what counts.

Hi James - Firstly: Really good work on all your thoughtful podcasts and clips. Secondly: Respectfully, there seems to be a big inference in your (version of the materialist) perspective in the assumption that consciousness "popped into existence" at some point in time. This implies a limiting of the definition of consciousness to a consciousness of objects. Why make the inference that consciousness must include objects and that it is finite? There isnt any evidence for this position (that consciousness is finite). So why make the inference at all? Experience shows us, if we look closely, that time is never experienced in the way we believe it is experienced. And if we inquire even more closely the same is true of space. Would it not be better to let experience (as opposed to belief) be the test of reality? Why confine consciousness to spatio-temporality? Again, I dont mean to be disprespectful here, I just see no reason to do make this inference, is all. .. Cheers/All The Best.

So do we remember any of this experience after we die?

I think it's great what you're doing. But you are so very early into the exploration of consciousness and after hearing this video you are simply reaching for conclusions you describe through your viewpoint. Understandable. But given I've spent a lot of time listening to similar things that have been fleshed out a bit more from other authors. I'm going to wait till you figure this out as well. Until then I'm out. But thank you.