Solving the Hard Problem of Consciousness - In Under 10 Minutes

[extremophile]

Albeit I can agree with 99%, I don't think it's a solution. We don't really have a way to tell that EM is really any more similar/similar enough to "qualia stuff" than "billiard balls". And we can't figure how qualia emerges from/is such brain EM. It's not like figuring the structure of DNA and then knowing how it makes heredity, or even theorizing that there are self-replicating molecules that code proteins. It's more a perspective that makes it seem less mind-boggling than a solution, IMHO.

[extremophile]

I don't mean that dualism is needed. One interesting approach I've read once is along the lines that we neglect the problem of different perspectives of the physical things. Perhaps there are phenomena that are the "bricks of qualia" that are regularly happening at the perspective of the/some physical things/reactions. But we can't ever know because the only thing we can observe from such internal perspective is "ourself". Or so I remember. Google "how qualia can be physical" "Dennis Nicholson"

[eventhisidistaken]

@AVanover5 If you study blood chemistry during wake and during sleep, you will find seratonin levels alter as you enter different states of consciousness. Should we thus conclude that seratonin causes consciousness? This is the same fallacy being made in regard to EM. EM is invisible and feels magic, so people want to say it's the source of consciousness. But it's not. The brain is the source of consciousness. Seratonin and EM waves are simply involved in the process.

[AVanover5]

The troubling thing that I find with this, is the implications of free will and the dependency on the source of the emerger (EM fields being the emergent). Libet's experiment has shown that decisions can be predicted by a neuroscientist 6 seconds in advance before the patient becomes aware of that decision. So, are the EM fields controlling the brain vehicle or is the brain a Google driveless car? Perhaps, it's a complete integrated system? But then... what is self?

[AVanover5]

@AVanover5 At least you have retrocognition with quantum voodoo.

[AVanover5]

This may not solve the Hard Problem of Consciousness (for example, we can't extract "Redness" out of a set of EM field parameters), but it greatly simplifies in on the physical level. If this is true, consciousness doesn't depend on a number of neurons in a ganglia or neocortex; no longer are we faced with troubling philosophical issues of nervous system evolution and origin. Interestingly, we are faced to think about life consciousness in a different manner. [Continued in next comment]

[AVanover5]

@AVanover5 This means that other inanimate objects which posses EM fields also experience. They may not have the self-consciousness we do from our thalamo-cortico-thalamo circuits, or the complexity of qualia from our encephalization, but they at least have a single quale. Therefore, if this is true, the first place to inspect quale would be a magnet. What quale does the basic EM parameters of a dipole magent posses (or rather, what quale is the magnet possessed by).

[AVanover5]

@AVanover5 Heck, we may even combine EEG and MEG technology to figure out which magnetic fields produce speech patterns, or visual data; it's already been done with neural patterns.

[grisgrisy]

some sweet info here

[ttwilkable]

some great inforamtion here thanks

[staranjela]

This is a great video

[shellybirdy]

great video thanks

[randy8614]

thank you for this enlightenment. i feel much better now!

[eventhisidistaken]

The EM stuff seems to me to add nothing to the fundamental argument, nor is it reasonably proven that consciousness could not result from, effectively, billiard balls. It's just assumed to make us accept that the problem is intractible, much like appealing to magic or to gods to explain consciousness. EM is very predictable, just as is gravity. Maxwell's equations are not magical. That argument fails to explain the transient nature of consciousness, such as during non-REM sleep.

[AVanover5]

@eventhisidistaken How does it fail to explain the transient nature of consciousness? When you enter Slow Wave Sleep, your neural oscillations becomes slower. Consequently, your EM field becomes weak. So, it would make sense that your consciousness is so feebily present.

[milkyroadtube]

I wanted to leave a comment , but.... "I" don't exist. So, who's typing this?

[1AdLucem]

Simply transferring the problem from neurons to EM fields does not solve the hard problem....which is why should ANY mechanism ( no physicist would agree that EM fields are 'not physical' ) have something that it is LIKE to be that mechanism.

[AVanover5]

@1AdLucem An EM field is a type of force quantity, a mathematical construct. It's only physical in the sense that it produces tangible effects. When combined with the quantity of distance, it becomes a scalar vector (work). But, it's still arbitrary. Just like gravity, the weak force, and the nuclear force.

[AVanover5]

@1AdLucem Pressure waves (pick your medium: air, water, concrete...) are another example of something non-material that produces tangible effects. This might be easier to envision. I would say radio waves as well, but that's basically the same as EM fields. Ah, and "energy". That's another thing people often think is "physical".

[JayGatsbyOdysseus]

It was interesting how he quoted Maxwell and Faraday and otheres from over 100 years ago. We are still using these guys. They were good. I don't think the Hard Problem will be solved. If it is there is a chance that we will need to kill billions of people in order to go to a Level One civilization. 10 billion people, hard problems, by 2050 will not get through the funnel to the other side. Remember, the grass may not be greener.

[hotdimsim]

ok, so physical neurons create a physical em field. how then does this em field constitute consciousness, or qualia?

that is the hard problem, all you have done is changed the physical terms

[Kostly]

There is NO solution in the physical. The Hindus were right about the reality of nature; ALL is consciousness. But, not ALL consciousness is realized. However, every potential, even those that are highly improbable i.e. wacky thoughts like the "bing bang" theory. LOL Yeah, I'm leaving it like that. Obviously, to me, there is some guiding force behind the quantum realm. The quantum realm arises from this filtered full potential. The universe is HOLISTIC...not a collection of artifacts.

[SubwayRatt]

this is pretty hard to understand. you kinda lost me in the second half of the video. having watched stuart hameroff's explanation in "the day i died" by the BBC (also on youtube) hameroff explained that the microtubials (sp) operate as tiny on board computers that can be in two places at the same time like it works in quantum physics. does hameroff's theory have a role in your theory at all?

[jeffkosmo]

@SubwayRatt - Sorry I lost you in my vid. For a more indepth discussion, please buy a copy of my book, Evolving Towards the Truth.

Regarding Hameroff: I think he's barking up the wrong tree. Sure, there may be some quantum stuff happening within our brains, but just because quantum mechanics is "strange and non-intuitive", doesn't mean that it is responsible for the strange, non-intuitive nature of consciousness.

[nahaymath]

@jeffkosmo I know I've watched only the first minute of your video and I really should watch the whole thing before commenting. For that I apologize. But, the one thing I really hoped you'd add to your list would be the accumulation of memory: in either a single mind or a collective mind, held both in physical atoms in libraries and in a group of minds. As time goes to infinity, the interval of time - and hence things in the past to remember - is unbounded.

Perhaps you address this elsewhere.

[kasaduhallo]

THis is a load of crap.You aren't explaining anything at all.Do your homework.

[sherlockfury]

You still haven't explained how electric-magnetic Radiation can create experience.

On your argument that there is no self: I think Dennet also holds this view, but I believe it is a misapprehension. Being that our understanding of the self is so severely limited, it is not a huge leap to say that there is only experience, and no being doing the experiencing, but wouldn't it just be the universe/existence experiencing itself?

[jeffkosmo]

@smilingvirus The HP of consciousness basically asks how qualia arise from physical processes. In other words, how first person experiences arise from the brain. This pretty much sounds like dualism.

Regarding "physical": EM may very well be studied in phys science. But EM phena are NOT physical in the classic Cartesian, Newtonian, Leibnizian ... and more importantly, epistemo-homo-sapien sense.

My book (Evolving Towards the Truth) goes into better detail.

Thanks for the comment!

[cmpresents]

I'm sorry but we are not EM, and it doesn't explain what consciousness is. You will be going in circles for ever.

[cmpresents]

No, you didn't solved it, you are not even close, you don't know what consciouseness is.

[w2aiq]

ok EM, but what is it about EM that produces experience how is it doing this, what does EM interact with to produce this....the answer to that question will have to be "I don't know" because you will never be able to explain it from your (our) vantage point.

Think of consciousness as the whole.....and you as an individual consciousness being a sub-set of this whole...can not get to the answer of this question from studying from the inside of the sub-set.

[Atlantean24]

Matter is sentient and we are the infinite and timeless multiverse observing itself. Dualism is BS.

There, problem solved.

[matyaskkk]

electrons are no less physical then atoms or "matter". Your concept of "physical" is flawed and your statement that because you don't consider electrons "physical" they can account for subjective experience which we can't compare to anything outside ones mind is false. I believe your argument is word play more then anything.

[MastersOfInfinity]

An education in how not to think.

[thedouble56]

across the brain can be deemed fundamental in explaining our stream of consciousness. That being the case, I hope I don't seem to be oversimplifying your theory to suggest that a good test of your hypothesis would be to see exactly how interfering with this electromagnetic activity could impact a person's experience. While this has been tried with TMS, I feel like a stronger electromagnetic interference would be required to test this hypothesis...

[thedouble56]

If I have correctly understood, you are suggesting that Qualia is the product of the electromagnetic energy created by the synchronization of all the neural activity within the brain. While it is known that specific brain functions (e.g. visual processing/memory/audition etc.) are localized in specific regions of the brain, we know that they are also all joined together by certain pathways. Experience feels rather hollistic and therefore it seems plausible that you postulate that EM unified acr

[parlezuml]

So, in summary, nobody knows nothing

[theZblues]

I think this hard problem will be solved as soon as the human language can present a description/definition for a person to describe what e g red colour looks like to him/her. Or describe what 'experience' is.

Before that, the hard problem is not really solved.

[MastersOfInfinity]

@theZblues What.

[DarkTrunksGeorgeSim]

I contend that you haven't solved anything.

[bharadrm]

It is convincing better way of explanation of duality phenomenon. In logical approach or so called scientific search requires a tool to measure where no such measure is defined consciousness. Even in physical science gives insufficiency of tool gives uncertainty principle. There are so many associated phenomena happening need to be understood. Like telepathy, clairvoyance.

[crusher1427]

This is a load of crap, even if we figure out the function of everything in the universe we still won't be able to figure out why we have an experience.

[BeamSurfer]

so my soul is electrical? tommarrow i'm goanna send down lighting from my soul

[BeamSurfer]

i am you

[ljloughl]

Just because we experience consciousness as an intuitive and holistic sort of thing, IN NO WAY does it follow that a complete and accurate understanding of it shall be intuitive OR holistic. You solved nothing.

[GrowingTreeAz]

Energy is Mass, Demension, Radiation, and Consciousness. Consciouness enables brain cells to communicate with each other by carrying imformation from one braincell to the next. Without consciousness brains and nervious systems would not have evolve. I also suppect evolution it self would not happen.

[maplebayou1]

I think he's saying that consciousness is not a separate entity from the neural activity that we are supposed to be conscious of, that the conscious "self" is not actually a distinct entity. I think this is true as far as it goes, but it doesn't have much explanatory power. It is like describing a running flight simulator program by resorting to talk of the operation of processors and hard drives.

[ClaireSapphyck]

@maplebayou1 Yes maple. It may be more detailed, but would really not be different in substance from that which goes on anywhere else in the universe, whether it be a dog's brain or the magnetic fields of a star.

[ClaireSapphyck]

Okay, but is he saying that consciousness is a fundamental quality of existence?

[jeffkosmo]

@ClaireSapphyck

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "fundamental quality of existence". If, by 'existence' you mean 'the universe', and if by 'fundamental' you mean 'likely to exist in other instantiations (ie, in other life forms in the universe), and that it exists due to some extremely complex, evolved, brain-like 'organ' within those life forms... then I would say 'yes'.

Continued in next comment...

[jeffkosmo]

@ClaireSapphyck

...Continued from previous comment

However, I don't believe that consciousness is a fundamental, necessary, underlying element, or form of energy that naturally pervades the universe (like atoms or radiation).

[ClaireSapphyck]

@jeffkosmo Thanks for the reply. My own understanding is that a lot of quantum physicists believe that it is a fundamental and necessary *quality*, possibly even that out of which everything else arises. Certainly the observer effect suggests that it is at least a necessary and fundamental part of what goes on, without which existence could not happen.

[maplebayou1]

@ClaireSapphyck My impression is that actually a tiny minority of physicists believe this. However, many would probably agree with Niels Bohr, whose position was that anything occurring outside of human observation is, in essence, outside the realm of physics. This is the Copenhagen interpretation. I suppose many would consider this a cop-out, but QM is quite revolutionary, more so than most people realize, and classical thinking about processes simply won't work any more.

[fishybishbash]

@jeffkosmo "However, I don't believe that consciousness is a fundamental, necessary, underlying element, or form of energy that naturally pervades the universe (like atoms or radiation)."

Why not? Maybe what we interpret as consciousness is bound up at quantum level and the relationship between it and our thought process is similar to that between the observed and unobserved particle in the double slit experiment? Maybe thats why the eastern philosophies advocate stillness of mind? Thoughts?

[crusher1427]

your comment about the brain's mechanics not being physical is inaccurate, quantum mechanics is just a different level of truth to physical reality, a layer if you may.

[ClaireSapphyck]

@crusher1427 I think you must be misunderstanding something I wrote as I don't believe I said what you are suggesting here. Of course the brain's mechanics are physical.

My point is that *consciousness* as such is not a physical phenomenon, it is of a different order of things ontologically. This is a fundamental issue which materialists often just fail to grasp.

[crusher1427]

OH my lord, I went through your entitre video twice and suprises me how you can be so intellegent in your analysis yet so ignorant in your conclusions !! You still didn't address the very reason why certain qualia apear in the mind at all !! Its not a matter of how but why ?? if we can explain the function of reality from a mechanical perspective why can't it all just go on in the dark without an observer that experiences. Why do I have to get that unpleasant feeling when I pinch myself ?

[AdrianLOkeeffe]

@ClaireSapphyck No - he says that if there is going to be a 'quality' then there has to be an expeirencer - but this leads to an eternal sequence of 'any representable state requires another 'experiencer' - therefor to avoid this the conscienceness is the expeirence. ...... i think!

[maplebayou1]

We can talk about what causes an electron to move. It seems a very different thing to talk about what causes 1 to not equal 2. Where in space or time would this latter process occur? It does not seem to be an event at all. In my opinion, consciousness is a piece of physical reality becoming aware of the existence of the abstract. This is not the same thing as perception. A bacterium can perceive. It cannot abstract.

[maplebayou1]

I have never been able to resolve in my own mind the distinction between 2 very different kinds of existence: (1) The existence of matter, energy, forces, which seem to have particular locations in space and time. (2) The existence of abstractions, mathematical forms, etc., which do not have locations in space and time. The abstract universe seems very different to me.

[jeffkosmo]

@maplebayou1

The way I see it, abstractions are simply constructs of the human mind. They don't exist per se. They are like templates, or symbols, or a language that our minds create to describe what's occurring in the natural universe. Kind of like the word "cat". Yes, my specific cat exists, as does my neighbor's. But there is no such entitity as a universal, abstract, Platonic-form of a cat. There are individual creatures with "cat-like" attributes, but no abstract cat-structure.

[maplebayou1]

@jeffkosmo I guess I would say that I'm less interested in the "ultimate" question of whether abstractions exist than where the simplest and best explanation of consciousness lies. It is not entirely clear to me where the dividing line between the abstract and the physical lies, my previous statements and your example notwithstanding. Is energy physical? How about information? Recently a paper was published describing an experiment in which the latter was converted into the former.

[maplebayou1]

@jeffkosmo I think consciousness is likely a model created by the running "computer program" we call the human mind. If so, it is an abstraction. I think Dennett's idea of the "center of a narrative" is pretty close. Cause and effect are abstractions, yet if we just leave it at "they don't exist," we lose a lot. I think we will find that this is the case with consciousness.

[xephyr1000]

Interesting videos. Thanks for posting.

[danzigvssartre]

Qualia (atoms of experience) are philosophical idealisations much as billiard balls are also (physical) idealisations. Phenomenal experience covers many complex things - seeing a full moon on a clear night, worrying about the stock exchange, hoping that it does not rain tomorrow, drinking a cup of tea (just to name a few). Are all these things an EM field? Why would an EM field worry about the stock exchange? Why does an EM field enjoy a cup of tea and not a gravitationa field? Hard Probem.

[1980albatros]

this video really blows, either this guy doesn't understand physics or his a misinform er or something i don't know. not just anyone can make such claims and then when asked on what grounds cant present any to make the argument, i think this is worth looking at but the tittle sucks }:)

[geodesicks]

Electromagnetic phenomena are not physical? WTF? Quantum electrodynamics is the most battle-tested theory of PHYSICS our species has come up with.

[jeffkosmo]

@geodesicks

EM phenomena are certainly covered in "Physics" classes and "Physics" books. But I contend that EM phena are not physical in the same sense as billiard balls, BBs and particle physics. I'm using the term "physical" in much the same way that perplexed Descartes and Leibniz.

[geodesicks]

@jeffkosmo : Billiard balls, BB and *particle physics*? Photons, the quantum of electromagnetic energy transfer, is one of the many particles we study in particle physics. There are many other species of phenomena apart from electromagnetic phenomena, like electroweak, gravitational and strong nuclear phenomenology. Any thing that can be accessed by our senses, whether it be billiard balls or photons or neutrinos are defined as physical phenomena. I don't understand where you draw the line.

[jccharltonjr]

Thanks for the video, enjoyed it...but it didn't solve the "hard problem" in the least, only rephrased the question (though it rephrased the question from a more realistic standpoint).

[theosophers]

If you study the calculus you will find that infinite regression of any physical continuum could be easily handled.

There is nothing absurd about infinite regression in the mathematical language tools that we have for descibing physics.

[BillTheWaterDrinker]

The hard problem of consciousness remains unsolved. We still do not understand how the chemical and electromagnetic activity of neurons can result in qualia. We have no solution and we don't even know what a solution would look like. That's why it's called the hard problem.

[jeffkosmo]

@BillTheWaterDrinker

You say, we still dont understand how the E M activity (EMA) can result in qualia.

Im saying, EMA doesnt result in (as in produce or cause) a quale; it IS the quale. Its the end of the causal road. We are it, and it be us.

Asking, How does this neural EMA cause qualia?, is like asking, How does mass cause gravity?

Contd below

[jeffkosmo]

@BillTheWaterDrinker

Contd from above

If youre looking for a physical, causal explanation, as in a response to a question like, How does a 4 stroke engine work?, youre never going to get it when it comes to understanding how the EMA in our neural columns cause qualia.

This is because, epistemologically speaking, of the fairly limited ways our simian brains actually understand things.

BTW, have you seen my video, Consciousness and the meaning of Why?

[BillTheWaterDrinker]

You massively oversimplify qualia by saying that it is EMA. A chair is made of EMA. Does it experience qualia? We can never really know for sure, but I seriously doubt it.

Why is qualia EMA? What evidence do you have for that. Why can't qualia be the strong nuclear force or gravity?

[jeffkosmo]

First, Im not implying that any and all E M activity is conscious, or that chairs somehow experience qualia. At about 3:24 I say that it is the E M activity found amongst our neural columns. I.e., its not any old manifestation of E M, but the unique, complex manifestation of E M found in the micro- proximity of these columns.

Cont'd below

[jeffkosmo]

Second, regarding the evidence I have that E M is the basis of qualia: I dont have evidence for it. Although, Im not entirely alone with this allegation. Google Johnjoe McFadden Electromagnetic, as well as Llinas electromagnetic.

Cont'd below...

[jeffkosmo]

However, my main intent is not to PROOVE that E M is the basis of qualia, but rather to present it as a very appealing and plausible candidate for solving the HP of C. Especially, in light of the old, inappropriate physical model of the brain, composed of inanimate, hard little molecules and atoms in motion.

Cont'd below...

[jeffkosmo]

Granted, some day it might be found that the strong force or quantum voodoo is ultimately responsible. But I say, before we hurry off to bark up these exotic trees, we should first investigate the more common E M shrubbery.

Thanks for the comments!

[polymath7]

Has anyone ever told you you bear a striking resemblance to one Jean-Claude Van Dam?

[AdenoidHynkelThe2nd]

As far as I know, the magnetic fields generated by neurons are much, much too weak to influence anything in the brain significantly.

Anyway, good video.

[qwertyzz7]

What is qualia? I mean what is this "redness" people cite. I always thought it was our brains matching a word to a feeling about an arbitrary length of the electro magnetic spectrum. And matching a social meaning to this word-stimulus package.

[Corestore16]

@qwertyzz7 The redness they are talking about is the sensation of red, or the phenomenal aspect of experiencing red that is difficult if not impossible to describe to someone who doesn't know the color red.

[qwertyzz7]

Thank you very much. I never really understood this stuff. Mostly cause I never question what I need to form and opinion that is non-derivative of another experience. So I never really question the experience of red or one or hot. At least, not in any meta-cognitive fashion. But again, thank you. It was kinda muddled in the video.

[LagMasterSam]

I fail to see how moving from atoms/molecules to EM makes the issue any simpler. EM is just as physical as atoms. EM is responsible when a person breaks a bone after falling from a large distance after all. The EM force among the atoms in the ground is pitted against the EM force among the atoms in your bones. Sometimes the ground collection of atoms wins and something gets broken.

Perhaps my understanding of physical is different. What do you mean by "physical"?

[jeffkosmo]

@LagMasterSam

From our evolved, epistemological perspective, EM activity is indeed part of what we call the "physical" universe.

I agree that EM activity is physical; but not in the sense that its tangible - in the BBs and biliard balls sense.

I believe it makes the issue simpler because seen this way, both EM activity and qualia are much closer in kind; both invisible, intangible and somewhat "ethereal".

[LagMasterSam]

@jeffkosmo

"From our evolved, epistemological perspective..."

I'm not sure what you mean by that statement. Are you referring to our evolved ability to contemplate knowledge? If so, how does that influence our perspective in perceiving EM as physical vs non-physical?

I understand how bridging the gap between mind and brain could be made easier this way. But, the reality of the situation is that atoms are just as intangible as EM. They can both be modeled as waves and/or particles after all.

[jeffkosmo]

@LagMasterSam

What I mean by, "our evolved, epistemo perspective", is that we like to view things as either being "physical" or mental. Descartes was probably the first hominid to actually articulate this. This is the way things certainly appear.

The problem I always had with trying to understand how consciousness arose from "physical processes" is that "physical stuff", as we hominids tend to view it, is as hard, little bits of inanimate matter. Not as "waves", fields or potentials.

[LagMasterSam]

@jeffkosmo

So you are approaching the problem from the viewpoint of someone who has only accepted a superficial understanding of reality?

This is not necessarily bad. However, I think it would be more appropriate to define both reality and spirituality clearly, rather than bridging the layman's understanding of reality to some amalgam of science and spirituality. Nearly everyone misunderstands both science and spirituality. That's why the precise definition of terms is so important.

[excandersham]

I thought neurons didn't have electromagnetic quality due to the myelin sheath

very nice video

[LagMasterSam]

"I thought neurons didn't have electromagnetic quality due to the myelin sheath"

Even disregarding that, there's the whole issue of distance, parallelism(physical alignment type), and power in regards to EM induction. Even more important, is the omnidirectional nature that a magnetic field expands in.

All these factors combined mean that the amount of power that could be transferred via EM to a nearby in axon is minuscule compared to the standard power of any one axon upon firing.

[almafarag]

wow, this sounds so sound to me, so right-minded, thanks for articulating it so neatly, I think one of the main lessons you imply with all this is to let go of our strong sense of agency and just marvel at the very process we actually are

[AhvousdiraijeMaman]

Nicely done video!

[QualiaSoup]

Wonderfully thoughtful analysis, Jeff. I particularly appreciated your dissolution of the homonculus-like 'haver of experience', which has traditionally impeded progress in the understanding of consciousness.

I think it would be more appropriate to regard the fields to which you refer as 'physical', however transitory etc. they may be, though I agree with the need to dissociate them from classical notions of 'billiard ball' activity.

I really enjoyed this video, Jeff. Thanks for posting.

[vulcanus30]

"Electromagnetic theories of consciousness" already exist

[NeoPsiTom]

Jeff, after watching this twice & thinking about it for several hours, I think you're right! I'll work on articulating why I think so, if it's even possible. I think your model can also explain freewill. Tom

[soulfetcher]

Good work Jeff. I like your very clear explanation here.

As long as we think 1st and 3rd persons are ontologically rather than epistemologically different, merely different perspectives - we will be driven to posit something like a soul to account for the qualia.

I did a recent vid trying to show that the freewill/determinism debate is result of the same dualistic error.

This was seen through 2 millennia ago in buddhist psychology.

But don't we hate to give up our childhood biasses!

[NeoPsiTom]

Hi Jeff. Thank you for your persistence & effort to get insight into what seems to be an intractable or as some say, unsolvable problem. Tom