The Neuroscience of Consciousness with Christof Koch

16 thoughts on “The Neuroscience of Consciousness with Christof Koch”

1. Guy is talking about everything having a soul while claiming he is a scientist and not talking about the supernatural… He seems kind of stupid to me honestly. Claiming "feeling" things is fundamental to physics is drivel.

2. AI has come a long way since this interview, I wonder how it portends to the IIT vs GWT debate

3. I am a physicist and I will provide solid arguments that prove that consciousness is not generated by the brain (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of concepts used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is in itself, which means how the object is independently from our observation.
   
   Let me show this with an example of emergent property, such as the function of a biological organ, like the heart that has the function of pumping blood. Actually, the function of pumping blood is just an abstract concept through which we approximately describe what is really happening, that is billions of linked chemical reactions and moving molecules. In other words, the function of the heart is only a subjective description of the organ from a macroscopic point of view, which neglect many microscopic details. Besides, the concept of pumping is directly connected to the concepts of force and movement, which are fundamental physical properties. Therefore, the function of the heart is not a new real property, but only a conceptual model through which we approximately describe the reality; this means that the function of the heart is just an idea. If we were smarter and could solve the equations of quantum physics for a macroscopic system, we could know all the processes that take place in physical reality without the need to consider simplified models. It is only because of the limitations of our intelligence that we have devised simplified conceptual models to describe natural phenomena. All the classifications used by biologists respond to the need to overcome the limits of our intelligence. Through biology, we describe natural phenomena in order to make them appear consistent with our way of reasoning; biological models are in fact very intuitive, unlike quantum physics. Emergent properties are then ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from a subjective point of view, certain processes or systems; emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are conceptual models based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes; emergent properties consist of ideas through which we describe how the external reality appears to our conscious mind: without a conscious mind, these ideas (= emergent properties) would not exist at all.

   Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, subjectivity, classifications and approximate descriptions, imply the existence of a conscious mind, which can arbitrarily choose a specific point of view and focus on certain aspects while neglecting others. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness. I specify that by consciousness I refer to the common property of all our psychical experiences, such as sensations, emotions, thoughts and even dreams.

   Here comes my second argument: our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the process and analyze it step by step, and in every step consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes. It must be also understood that considering a group of elementary processes together as a whole is an arbitrary choice. In fact, according to the laws of physics, any number of elementary processes is totally equivalent. We could consider a group of one hundred elementary processes or ten thousand elementary processes, or any other number; this choice is arbitrary and not reducible to the laws of physics. However, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrary choices; therefore consciousness cannot be a property of a sequence of elementary processes as a whole, because such sequence as a whole is only an arbitrary and abstract concept that cannot exist independently of a conscious mind.

   Here comes my third argument: It should also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of parallel sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is billions of minds and personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. Consciousness is in fact the only phenomenon that we know from direct experience, and from direct experience we know that consciousness is characterized by the immediate and intuitive awareness of being an indivisible subject, of being an "I". If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity; this missing unit is the necessarily non-physical element (precisely because it is missing in the brain), the element that interprets the brain processes and generates the unitary conscious state that characterizes all our psychic experiences, i.e., the human mind.

   Here comes my fourth argument: as we experience it directly, consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This phenomenological characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, is incompatible with the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of incoherent elementary quantum processes; such brain processes do not identify a single global unit. When someone claims that consciousness is a property of the brain, they are implicitly considering the brain as a whole, an entity with its own specific properties, other than the properties of the components.From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of speaking of "brain" rather than many molecules that have different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness. So, if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to assume that such a system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore such property would be nonphysical. Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it, but such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body, with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people, and to do so we use physical means, for example acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). The brain is actually an arbitrary set of quantum particles involved in billions of parallel sequences of linked chemical reactions. This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is, is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics. Besides, since the brain is an arbitrary concept, and consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness, consciousness cannot be a property of the brain. Actually, the very idea that consciousness is a property of the brain is an arbitrary assumption, independent of the laws of physics. Based on these considerations, we can exclude that consciousness is generated by brain processes or is an emergent property of the brain; the brain is not even a sufficient condition for the existence of the most elementary psychical experience, such as a simple sensorial perception. Marco Biagini

4. It's becoming clearer that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with primary consciousness will probably have to come first.

   The thing I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing.

   Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461

5. This is exactly the field i want to get into! This interview really opened my eyes to that. Thank you!!!

6. a program that detect somthing trough a cameria is not aware of anything yet can detect things. first when the program becomes aware that it is detecting and not what its detecting it have become conscious.

7. Consciousness is associated with “Thinking” and is independent of “Thinking”.
   This thought is understood only by Consciousness.

8. Just fabulous! Thank you.

9. we need neuroscientists speaking in on abortion discussions.

10. Here I can help you understand Dr. When you said "When there is damage to the brain or if you subject it to a magnetic field you can STOP THAT FUNCTION of the brain Center That is obvious. The reason is the effected area cannot transmit and decode the properties of consciousness. Nows the lesson: The Human Brain is a Consciousness Receiver/transmitter. The Neuro-net inside the Brain acts as the Antenna receiving and discharging encrypted photons. When a neuron flares it has accumulated the conscious information and sends it down the pipe to be processed and distributed into either an emotion or function or both. Remote viewing is the answer to understand the mechanical structure of consciousness. Michael Spartan

11. If the theory was true then he could explain it in 5 minutes top. This theory is in making and it sounds complicated. And as much as I like Koch, he should explain the core idea quickly and not talk about secondary or unimportant stuff. And he should not hide behind scientific language when explaining the theory to the laypeople. I guess I had too high expectations for learning from Koch – I guess I came disappointed by an interview with him again.

12. THE MAN HIMSELF

13. First time I've watched one of your videos and I have to say it was thoroughly enjoyable. Great interviewer and great guest 🙂

14. some notable neuroscientist such as peter fanwick seem to think that consciousness does not necessarily originate in the brain. they base their claim on nde experiences i wonder if this idea is too challenging for dr koch. i would love to know if you are open minded to the possibility.

15. Found this via http://www.reddit.com/r/neuronaut

16. I loved this interview! Excellent content August!

Comments are closed.