#374 - Consciousness and the Physical World

#374 - Consciousness and the Physical World

Bibliography

• Author: Making Sense with Sam Harris - Subscriber Content
• Full_Title: #374 - Consciousness and the Physical World
• Category: podcasts
• URL: https://share.snipd.com/episode/4603c4d3-228c-4ee0-b339-abd411d94b4d
• Last Highlighted Date: 2024-09-28 03:38:15.382832+00:00

Highlights

• Consciousness Requires More Than Neuron Count Summary: Consciousness isn’t determined solely by the number of neurons; the organization of those neurons plays a critical role. While some theories suggest that consciousness emerges only when a certain threshold of neuron quantity is crossed, observations reveal that individuals can retain consciousness despite significant neuronal loss, such as in the case of cerebellum damage or spinal cord injuries. This indicates that the structural arrangement and complexity of neural connections are essential for consciousness, challenging the simplistic view that more neurons inherently mean more conscious awareness. Transcript: Speaker 1 Three or two neurons, or the brain of a human that has on the order of 100 billion neurons. But he was also, Francis was very clear, he said, this hypothesis may not be true. There might be other ways we have to think about it. And he was sympathetic. So for instance, very early on, we encountered Jerry Edelman, another Nobel Laureate who would also move from Manhattan, from the Rockefeller Institute to the Scripps Institute In La Jolla. And he worked with a person at the time, Julia Tononi, who’s now also a very well -known Conscience researcher. And he explored the possibility that maybe it has to do with the complexity. They wrote, for example, an early influential paper called Consoneness and Complexity, arguing that complexity had to be involved, which is a little bit more than just saying it’s Just a bunch of neurons. Because the most widespread belief among neuroscientists is, well, it’s an emergent property, just like wetness emerges from water. You don’t get, if you have two H2O molecules, they’re not wet, but if you got, you know, 10 to the 23, like a liter of H2O molecules, then it gets wet. And similar, if you have a few neurons, they’re not conscious, but you got 100 billion of them, then some of they’re conscious. But then we also, Francis and I realized that’s inadequate because you have some structures, like the cerebellum. So you have this little brain tucked underneath your big brain at the back of your head. It contains, in fact, 80%, four or five neurons in your head are in the cerebellum. You can lose these neurons. Let’s say, due to a stroke or due to two more, you will be impaired. You can’t do fast speed typing on your phone anymore. You can’t play violin or piano anymore. You have a few other issues like that, but basically you stagger both, you look like you’re always drunk. But basically, all these people, these patients who have lost part or whole of their cerebellum, they see, they hear, they dread, they fear, they imagine. Their consciousness is essentially first order unchanged. And so that tells you that it can’t just be the number of neurons. It has to do with at least with the way they’re organized. Same thing with the spinal cord. You can be quadriplegic. You’ve just lost all your spinal cord, 200 million neurons, so you can’t move. But again, your consciousness hasn’t really changed that dramatically. So it can’t just be the number of neurons, it has to be the way they’re organized. And Francis, the hope was similar to what he had accomplished in molecular biology, that if we look at the right neural mechanism in the right way, then suddenly it’ll become apparent,
  • Tagged: #zk #neuroscience
  • Time 0:09:39, Open in Readwise
  • Note: Consciousness is greater than just the sum of all neurons. ^rw786991792
• Consciousness and Complexity: Quantity Doesn’t Equal Quality Summary: An increase in the number of neurons does not equate to consciousness. Just like a few H2O molecules are not wet but a larger number is, consciousness emerges from complex structures and specific organizational patterns within neural networks. For example, significant impairment occurs when the cerebellum, housing the majority of neurons in the brain, is damaged, yet fundamental consciousness remains intact. Additionally, individuals with extensive spinal cord neuron loss may become paralyzed but still retain consciousness. This indicates that the quality of consciousness is related more to the organization of neurons than merely their quantity. Transcript: Speaker 1 Don’t get, if you have two H2O molecules, they’re not wet, but if you got, you know, 10 to the 23, like a liter of H2O molecules, then it gets wet. And similar, if you have a few neurons, they’re not conscious, but you got 100 billion of them, then some of they’re conscious. But then we also, Francis and I realized that’s inadequate because you have some structures, like the cerebellum. So you have this little brain tucked underneath your big brain at the back of your head. It contains, in fact, 80%, four or five neurons in your head are in the cerebellum. You can lose these neurons. Let’s say, due to a stroke or due to two more, you will be impaired. You can’t do fast speed typing on your phone anymore. You can’t play violin or piano anymore. You have a few other issues like that, but basically you stagger both, you look like you’re always drunk. But basically, all these people, these patients who have lost part or whole of their cerebellum, they see, they hear, they dread, they fear, they imagine. Their consciousness is essentially first order unchanged. And so that tells you that it can’t just be the number of neurons. It has to do with at least with the way they’re organized. Same thing with the spinal cord. You can be quadriplegic. You’ve just lost all your spinal cord, 200 million neurons, so you can’t move.
  • Time 0:10:41, Open in Readwise ^rw791583002
• The Limits of Physicalism: Matter May Not Mean Meaning Summary: Physicalism posits that the only existing entities are physical in nature, typically understood as matter and energy. However, this view encounters significant challenges when confronting the emergence of feelings and subjective experiences. There remains a profound struggle in both philosophy and science to explain how consciousness and emotional experiences arise from mere physical components like atoms. This inability to bridge the gap between physical existence and the qualitative nature of feelings constitutes a critical limitation of physicalism. Transcript: Speaker 1 So physicalism, it’s a metaphysical idea that the only thing that exists is physical. Let’s come. I think we have to discuss what is meant by that. But most people have an intuition. It’s matter and energy. Good old materialism. And then the challenge is, well, if you believe that, fine, but then how do feelings emerge? And you know, philosophy has been utterly unable, or science has been utterly unable to explain how any sort of feelings, it feels like something to be me emerges out of atoms and the Void. That’s the biggest challenge that physicalism has utterly failed to me, number one.
  • Tagged: #zk #neuroscience
  • Time 0:26:46, Open in Readwise
  • Note: Physicalism is the idea that there is matter and energy alone, however the greatest challenge of physicalism is the inability to explain feelings, which seems to appear from a void. ^rw791585175
• Reality is shaped by observation, not just existence. Summary: The limitations of physicalism become evident when attempting to define what is considered ‘physical.’ Quantum mechanics reveals complexities such as entanglement, where the state of one particle at a distance can instantaneously affect another, challenging traditional notions of locality and material existence. Furthermore, recent developments in physics indicate that reality is influenced by measurement; different observational protocols yield different realities, suggesting that the act of observing itself plays a crucial role in shaping existence. This participatory aspect of reality raises fundamental questions regarding the adequacy of physicalism as a comprehensive framework for understanding the universe. Transcript: Speaker 1 But now the additional evidence for physicalism being inadequate, namely at the bottom, at the rock bottom of physicalism is how do we define the physical. And if you listen to anything in quantum mechanics over the last 30 years, like we all know, it’s deeply troubling and it’s very difficult to define what is the physical. And the fact the physical includes such bizarre things as two particles that are entangled, that are at opposite ends of the universe if you observe one and determine its state instantaneous, Instantaneous the state of the other one is determined. You’re talking about non -locality. Non -locality. So what sort of, I mean, what sort of physicalism is that if things are entangled across the universe? That’s certainly not my grandfather. That’s certainly not Dem, you know, Adams and the Voight. And then, you know, now turns out that the entire school of physics, you know, that does what’s called contextuality or called first person physics, right, where it is where they accept As a fact, as an observation, as an empirical fact, that what exists really depends on what you measure. And if you have different measurement protocols, different things, you measure different things that weren’t there before. So the mere act of observing, the participatory universe, the mere act of observing creates reality. Well, how does that sit with standard of physicalism? So there’s a concept. Let
  • Tagged: #neuroscience #zk
  • Time 0:29:15, Open in Readwise
  • Note: Physicalism falls short because it is difficult to define the physical. For example, quantum entanglement and non-locality tell us that when we observe the state of one particle then instantaneously we understand the state of another, possibly across the universe. This leads to schools of thought where the mere act of observing creates reality, a sort of first-person physics ^rw791585332