Rebecca Newberger Goldstein – Toward a Science of Consciousness

45 thoughts on “Rebecca Newberger Goldstein – Toward a Science of Consciousness”

1. Anybody going for a heart or a brain surgery wants and needs a general anesthesia for consciousness to go sleep.

2. ❤❤❤❤❤

3. Bravo . . . very likeable.

4. it's available as what you see and how not to see? spiritual not religious.

5. it's useful as a peripatetic ( school of Aristotle)

6. it's has to be existentialism theory sillogism argumentative logical reason.

7. 42

8. maybe subjective experience is more fundamental than mathematics? could subjective experience or awareness describe mathematics as consciousness, which in turn describes physical matter?

9. how might subjective emotions and feelings interact with physical brain?

10. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics. “The Unique and Its Property “, Max Stirner/ Landstreicher translation for proper ‘ self’ understanding.

11. Gravity is the earth approaching- expanding at 16 feet per second per second constant acceleration- the released object. Analyze that. We literally don’t know up from down. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon.

12. Rebeca rolls her eyes back as she tries to remember or think about something. We all do that; why? Are we trying to virtually look into our minds? It's as if our non physical self is trying to move within our physical body. Could this be an indication of dualism?

13. The most common problem of physicists is to figure out the most proper method to calculate the actual magnitude of the fields forces acting upon the observed with great precision. Nowadays, physicists, in general, I believe don't have the consciousness to figure out what is the real configuration of the space structure. To better visualize this predicament, suppose you're observing a planet with a powerful telescope, and you measured both the semi-major axis and the orbital period of a planet. After making some calculations to determine the actual mass of the sun, you realized there were some discrepancies. Why? Because the gravitational fields might be twisted. Analogously, if you have 10 feet long Manila rope, and you decided to untwine all twisted strands and stretch them out, you'll find the true lengths of all strands are longer than the 10 feet long rope in twisted form. If these strands represent lines of forces, then the true length of a strand determines the real magnitude of the forces acting upon observed.

14. Max Planck answered this dilemma with his quote

    “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”

    Our Universe is a conscious construct. There is so much evidence for this but the religious mantras of modern physics wont allow for the exploration of anything but the same 'matter is the basis of everything we observe' that brilliant minds have to travel the same hamster wheel their fore bearers did to remain relevant.

    The most powerful force in the known Universe is human thought…if a man can think it he/she can do or overcome it. Quantum theory shows that everything is energy that manifests itself through observation. Electromagnetism drives everything in our Universe from the Strong Force to the electricity that drives our modern society. Our brains and bodies have inherent electrical fields that produce what we call life and our hearts and brains generate its own electro magnet fields…the heart process emotions and the brain (mind) processes facts when working properly.

    The Universe is so finely tuned for life because it is 'a derivative of consciousness'. God, the quantum field and whatever other names philosophers and Eastern mystics have named it is the electromagnetic force we call consciousness. And until we collectively let go of the over beaten idea of philosophical materialism as the fundamental substance of nature and consciousness, we will keep running in circles on the same hamster wheel generation after generation. Max Plank and quantum theory have both shown us that conscious creative energy is the fundamental substance of nature. Why not try something different and let go of the religious scientific mantras of relevancy and try something radical…you may be pleasantly surprised.

15. 9:17 “Maybe what we’re seeing [in] the tension … between relativity theory and quantum mechanics is … a different way … of [getting] at a complete description of matter. Maybe when … that breaks open into a new methodology, we’ll… get properties that yield consciousness.” First, thanks to both of you for this delightfully analytical discussion. Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, we are from communities that seldom intersect. I did not know of your existence until seeing this snippet, which I gather is from two years ago. Of the many Closer To Truth interviews and outtakes I’ve watched, this snippet is among the most insightful and interesting.

    Regarding the tensions between maths and physics, the question seldom asked is whether our maths might be the problem. It’s an important question since most of our maths are, if you stop and think carefully about it, generalizations of the pre-quantum, pre-relativistic classical physics of the 1700s and 1800s. Classical physics, especially in the late 1800s, was so successful at explaining the world around us that they were considered “fundamental” and beyond the need for reexamination, even after the early 1900s.

    The difficulty is that since the early 1900s, we have known that the classical view of dimensions and time is not a self-consistent system mathematical system. The Euclidean model of three or more perfectly orthogonal axes and point-like locations is an approximation that works well only in the classical sweet spot in which we exist and from which we make most of our observations. This sweet spot is a land of exceedingly small and deceptively point-like atoms that work hand-in-hand with slow, non-relativistic velocities to give rise to an illusory, non-relativistic separation of space and time.

    Think about the implications of that. Every Hilbert space in quantum mechanics, and every manifold in general relativity, is based on an effective, but also defective, set of assumptions about physics that only works well within the narrow range of physics we now call “classical physics” — and even there, only approximately. So why have we never updated the maths themselves to reflect better the only formal system we know works without paradox, which is the experimentally accessible physical universe?

    The simple answer is that our brains are survival-optimized to take maximum advantage of the easy-to-calculate classical approximation of space and time. That makes it difficult even to conceive how to break such “simple” ideas as length and time into still simpler units. The rise of computers has helped since they enable a more robust and straightforward exploration of ideas not typically encountered in everyday processes.

    Here’s a specific example of the dangers of using maths based on seemingly “obvious” classical concepts of what is fundament and what is not:

    As you read these words on a laptop, does it strike you as plausible that light might take one billion years to travel from your face to the laptop camera, while light from the screen to your eye travels at about 9.5 x 10^30 km/s, that is, 3.2 x 10^25 times the usual “maximum” speed of light? Could such an insanely asymmetrical directional asymmetry in the universe’s structure result in the same physics we know and expect?

    It does, of course. The only constraint is that the asymmetry must apply universally.

    Furthermore, would you be surprised to learn that Einstein was aware of this problem when he defined the speed of light in his 1905 papers? He carefully included (but did not emphasize) a round-trip definition of the speed of light due to this being a necessary feature of special relativity. It’s necessary because, in a fast-moving object, light takes longer to travel forward than it does backward. Since one of the most profound principles of special relativity is that there is no way to prove you do not reside within such a fast-moving frame, this principle of asymmetric equivalence must apply even if you are, as best you can tell, not moving.

    The secret sauce is that when you measure time and space in both directions — when you create loops from yourself to the object and back — all of these strange asymmetries cancel out, giving you back the concept of “classical” space in which all units are stable and isotropic — that is the same in all directions, at best you can tell.

    Think about that. If the most fundamental units of space and time require loops of undetermined size in both space and time to implement the illusion of point-like classical space, then the reductionist idea that the universe chops up neatly into an infinite number of infinitesimal points begins to look dicey indeed. The illusion works fantastically in cases where matter and atoms are abundant and dense, which is why point-based, fixed-unit equations work well for any primarily classical domain.

    However, if you get either too small (say, atoms) or too large (cosmic scales), trying to define everything as perfect points starts to run afoul of this “loopy” two-way nature of all measurements. Does it matter? Physics has devised some pretty good fixes, including quantum and field theory for atomic and smaller scales and the relativities for cosmic scales. However, the truth is that such issues seldom are explored due to our use of maths that assume perfect points and are axioms that need no further explanation.

    The more straightforward approach is to recognize that the since the maths we use are idealizations of a badly incomplete classical-physics sweet spot, it’s more likely that physics expressed using better maths forms a smooth continuum that extends both below and above our classical sweet spot. The conflict between quantum and relativity is more likely a problem of our own making than something inherent to physics.

    Your interest is consciousness, a phenomenon many think cannot be point-like in the extreme reductionist sense. The good news for consciousness theory is that a quantum special relativity universe cannot have point-like metrics. If we think about it carefully, we’ve known that since the early 1900s. It’s just taking our maths a while to catch up.

    (a PDF copy of this 2023-04-29 comment is available at sarxiv dot org slash apa)

16. Rebecca is my favourite philosopher on consciousness. I always find myself nodding and agreeing with every word, which she expresses with clarity and humility. New interviews with Rebecca please!

17. Continued descents into forming conceptual ideas that only unveil more abstract mathematical notions of consciousness doesn't seem to be what will birth a satisfactory outlook on the evolution of consciousness. We will ever be unearthing new knowledge of understanding the brain and the cosmos but until we develop the imagination and intuition that connects us again to our spiritual anteriority that has for the most part been severed, we will always be thirsty. Yes in many ways we have all that we need but unfortunately many don't entertain any esoteric revelations that get lumped into the label of :mystical' which seems to be the only bridge to unite scientific pursuits with the also abundant knowledge of the unseen worlds that can bring forth a concretion of truth that will give rest to the weary.

18. Explain this processes in any language you know of. These two videos were posted by former Jewish and Christian and there was no middle man in their story.

19. The question of “consciousness “ is formulated in dualist language. You have pieces from 2 different puzzles and then try to force them together. The problem isn’t “what’s wrong with the answer “ but what’s wrong with the question. “Matter” isn’t inert, nor is it conscious. It has an equivalence to “energy “ . Stones aren’t conscious, even though ridiculous philosophers believe they are. The brain is conscious. Examine your language… you say, “My brain,” although you know that literally YOU are your brain’s conversation. All your language is dualistic and then you’re frustrated because you are painted into a corner.

20. It’s interesting to me that the growing openness to idealism is correlated with our growing improvements in AI.

    These coming 5-10 years of AI research will make the hard problem much sharper in our minds and I predict material science is going to fall short on ever giving a coherent explanation for subjectivity.

21. This chat brought to mind a spirit level of possibility, with everything possible on one side and the impossible on the other. This made me realise that even in the realm of all things possible, there are impossibilities.

22. What is subjective can never be objective, regardless of the verbiage of reasoning and explanation, but rather, experienced through inner silence.

23. The elephant in the room is Sanatan Dharma, and the frustrated elite chosen few are trying desperately to digest it and make it their own, and thus, deny credit and recognition to the ancient land and unbroken civilization from where it originated.

24. https://youtu.be/xvDuqW9SFT8

25. Scientists want to understand consciousness; religious and spiritual types want it to remain a mystery. I put my trust in the side that isn't making unwarranted assumptions about the nature of reality.

26. I'd like to see an interview with Phillip k. Dick. His voices gave him a perspective that most experts won't get.
    Except maybe Mr. Karl Jung.
    Maybe

27. I like you too have a session with Richard Dawkins and Sam harris.on consciousness.ect 🤔

28. I’m not certain about anything.💥🌸

29. do human beings have subjective emotion or feeling during sleep when not conscious, such as during dreams, sleepwalking, and maybe other?

30. can conscious thought be explained or described in brain?

31. Consciousness is like a cloud of ether that has the ability to place you in any experience that reality provides for time doesn't exist so your born there you just didn't pick year 19!! Reality did

32. In this fascinating video, Professor Goldstein touches on many important points. But, like many contemporary philosophers, she has insufficient confidence in the power of metaphysical systems to provide rational, lucid accounts of our universe, and our place within it, that go beyond the limited ambit of science.

    Science tells us in exquisite detail the mathematical structure of the cosmos, but it cannot – even in principle – tell us anything about its intrinsic nature. The cosmos must have some intrinsic nature, otherwise there would be no difference between an instantiated and uninstantiated model of the world. (So, contrary to the belief of many philosophers, the concept of “reality” is utterly obscure if one adopts physicalism.)

    Likewise, if one is a physicalist, this commits you to “the causal closure of the physical world”, which is a great stumbling block to any plausible account of the mind-body problem.

    Having said this, it is essential for any credible metaphysical system to be consistent with contemporary science – including physics, evolutionary biology, neuroscience, and cosmology. My on attempt to make progress with the mind-body problem combines panpsychism with idealism. It does not require genius – just a clear understanding that the problem is a philosophical one, rather than being a solely scientific one.

33. The problem of consciousness is one of understanding the process of development and integration within the brain. The hippocampus is not fully developed until the age of 3 years and for that reason many of us experience infantile amnesia, in which we fail to remember anything or have very few memories before the age of 3 years. Does this mean we were not conscious during this ageing period? Many would argue no, because the experiences we have during this time impact the development of our brain, despite not being able to remember them. Dualism is a nonsense concept and is used to compensate for our current lack of understanding regarding the integration process that occurs in the brain to facilitate consciousness. The key to understanding consciousness is understanding all facets of memory and how it is integrated within the brain.

34. Such a unique discussion going on right now in science and philosophy. With some people saying about consciousness, This is the hard problem, nearly impossible to understand and suggestive of some unknown force, property, element, field or process that exists or occurs in reality that we haven't discovered yet. While others say, What's so hard? Consciousness was Selected for by Nature through the process of evolution and has generally been increasing in complexity over time. But then, the question is asked, how does non-conscious matter become conscious? To which my reply is, probably in the same way and perhaps even at the same time as non-living matter became living matter: gradually over hundreds of millions of years…

35. The sound associated with a particular alphabetic letter is
    dependent on that letter's pattern
    regardless of in which font a letter may be written.

    But that's not the sole determinant of
    the way a letter is to be pronounced.

    Pronunciation also depends on a letter's alphabetic context .
    Here's an illustrative example..
    The 'a' in 'ate' is not pronounced the way it is in 'at'.
    (The 'a' in 'ate' is pronounced 'long' whereas the 'a' in 'at' is pronounced 'short').
    The vowel 'e' on the end of 'ate',
    in conjunction with the separating consonant 't',
    stipulates the vowel 'a' is to be pronounced in the 'long' way.
    The rule applies to any two vowels separated by a consonant.

    (The double 'tt' in 'attic' separates the 'a' and 'i' sufficiently to defeat the rule.
    Thus the 'a' in 'attic' is 'short', pronounced the way it is in 'at'
    (and 'atic', if it was a word, you wouldn't want to bite you)).
    (I won't discuss regional accents as that topic
    is too far from what this comment is about).

    There are many exceptions to that rule and
    these exceptions are in large part responsible for why
    native speakers are easily able to recognize
    learners of English-as-a-second-language).

    One can easily imagine there must have been
    very different mentalities and social dynamics
    during those first five thousand years of civilization before speech gave birth to writing.
    How entirely dependent the people must have been on their fleshy memories and
    how immensely helpful ritual and ceremony must have been
    in the guidance and control of their collective behavior, their society.
    (All the ritual and ceremony going on in churches today
    is hung over from those olden days thanks no doubt to cultural inertia.
    Two millennia after writing was invented and
    humanity became conscious (in the current sense),
    we promptly chose democracy over religion to control us.
    (Promptly meaning relatively, three millennia, a mere eye blink in our evolution).
    The struggle of religion to regain control is obviously the cause
    of much of the conflict we see in the world today.
    (Conservatism,
    in its effort to restore religion to societal control,
    is what makes conservatism fundamentally anti democratic)).

    to be continued

36. Does anyone know, is there any life that does not display a will to live? What is the will to survive rooted in physically? Is there a specific gene?

37. This was some grade A verbal diarrhea. She used so many words to say absolutely nothing.

38. It's not hard to imagine how science could eventually disprove some commonly assumed aspects of Dualism, with no need for a new Galileo to invent a new way of understanding properties of matter. Specifically, the thoughts & decisions that result from the stimulation and/or inhibition of particular sets of neurons might eventually be predicted with high confidence, which would disprove free will.

39. "full-bodied dualism" like Hume? The initial problem with dualism is that it's a rubric of belief-commitments, more than any select group of beliefs, which requires clarification. For dualism to begin with, all that's needed is the 'explosive' conclusion. { A v ~A -| B } or that B is somehow under-determined by contradictory premises.

40. Understanding the exact mechanics and processes of consciousness is difficult, but it is growing by leaps and bounds.
    Understanding that the brain produces consciousness is not difficult, and that includes the so-called “hard problem” of consciousness. Trace the human evolutionary journey, hand signs to vocalizations to complex language, cultural and behavioral evolution, gestation from embryo to newborn, and the continual learning process throughout life, and learn the brain and it’s inner workings, and that will enlighten and convince you that the brain creates the self, mind, and consciousness. We result from the physical and material inner-working of the brain -neural networks.
    In time, AI will replicate human thinking, emotions, memory, imagination, creativity, and qualia. What will be our place in such a world?

41. She shows conscience keep out neuroscience process. It is baseless discusion without show conscience truly. Rambling gibberich. Lol.

42. Consciousness is not elusive. Humans are the elusive ones. You are conscious but consciousness also exist outside of you in the form of space. This consciousness comes towards you when you go towards it. It exchanges yours for his. You are in the kingdom already but you lack like many others fail to grasps how religious text is supposed to be used r

43. You can access it, but you can't mathematically let it out. Man is too wicked and ignorant, plus greedy to give a concrete description.

44. Yaeh, Science of the Eternal Life and Consciousness, is Here,
    it have to be Developed, but it is Here.
    When the Bee's get hungry, they'll find the Honey.

45. Forgive me,
    Philosophy or Metaphysics is scientific! and one should not suffer this accusation, despite tacitly or indirectly made known, from people believing that 'science' by default is a meaning that's circumscribed to 'empiricism' strictly! If, in fact, you do choose to take such a position, then fine, and such a stance by natural scientific inquiry does require an explication atleast, for why intellect, love, imagination, feelings, expression, dispositions, or all sorts of faculties in general of the Soul to be explained for why they are precluded from "science" or rather empiricism and specifically on the grounds of not being tangible or perceivable does not merit preclude from 'science', despite popular votes.

Comments are closed.