Science is shattering our intuitions about consciousness Annaka Harris

[Uncle Joe]

Consciousness is everything we know, everything we experience. The mystery at the heart of consciousness lies in why our universe – despite teeming with non-conscious matter – is configured in a way where it's having a felt experience from the inside.

Modern neuroscience suggests that our intuitions about consciousness are incorrect. And so, it's possible that we've been thinking about consciousness the wrong way entirely, says bestselling author Annaka Harris.

If this is true, then consciousness may not be something that arises out of complex processing in brains, says Harris. Consciousness could be a much more basic phenomenon in nature, an all-pervading force, like gravity. If we think of it in these terms, we can imagine that all types of processing in nature could include some type of felt experience.

[erronis]

1. Link to the "Big Think" site.

https://bigthink.com/

Thanks for this - looks like it might be interesting.

It's always good to provide a bit of textual information (including links) so people don't have to watch a video to see if they are interested.

[Faux pas]

2. Seems

plausible to me.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

3. Disappointing. 10 minutes of words, few facts, no explanation of the "all-pervading force" idea. . . .nt

[stoned]

4. Annaka is freaking awesome

Every podcast I've ever seen with her has been amazing.

[Mike 03]

5. It's so interesting because this is the premise set out

in so many of the early Buddhist and Bon teachings (specifically the Vajrayana Dzogchen texts) that talk about the "ground" or "base" of all consciousness (a word the texts themselves avoid) is what they term Rigpa or Primordial Wisdom, which is the enlightened part of an essence that is distinguished by being cognizant awareness (which I think of as consciousness, but advanced Buddhists may make a distinction) . And there are debates on what the third aspect of the "Ground" is, with some texts calling it "unconstrained proliferation" or "spontaneous luminosity", meaning that what appears as matter manifests spontaneously and that there are no limits on what can manifest. (But in eastern thought the absolute goal is to transcend subject/object but that is an entirely different discussion).

Wish I was better at explaining all this, but it is fascinating.

I love that we don't know everything.

[Easterncedar]

16. It's a good explanation. Enlightening! Thanks

[Martin68]

6. Ummm, this has nothing to do with science. New Age woo.

[Uncle Joe]

7. Doesn't science start with questions and hypothesis?

[Martin68]

8. Science starts with science. Not intuitions and feelings. It forms hypotheses based on observed phenomena. This

story does not mention a single reason to believe that individual atoms have consciousness. Science is looking for consciousness in the brain where a hundred billion connections among 100 trillion neurons that form the neural networks. Scientists believe consciousness is a function of the complexity of those electrical connections in the brain. The only sense in which we can say atoms are "involved" in consciousness is the fact that neurons, and all matter, are composed of molecules.

[Uncle Joe]

9. and in turn atoms are composed of sub-atomic particles

Subatomic particles are particles that are smaller than the atom. Protons, neutrons, and electrons are the three main subatomic particles found in an atom. Protons have a positive (+) charge.

The OP wasn't speaking of a reasoning type of consciousness that we experience, but awareness on a different level.

[Martin68]

10. The farther down you break it, the farther you get from consciousness. This is pure woo.

Do bricks dream of being a building?

[Uncle Joe]

11. Do the leaves on some plants turn toward sunlight?

They don't have a brain but they're conscious of light as a resource to survive.

[Jim__]

13. Just a note: biochemistry can explain phototropism.

From wikipedia:

...

There are several signaling molecules that help the plant determine where the light source is coming from, and these activate several genes, which change the hormone gradients allowing the plant to grow towards the light. The very tip of the plant is known as the coleoptile, which is necessary in light sensing.[2] The middle portion of the coleoptile is the area where the shoot curvature occurs. The Cholodny–Went hypothesis, developed in the early 20th century, predicts that in the presence of asymmetric light, auxin will move towards the shaded side and promote elongation of the cells on that side to cause the plant to curve towards the light source.[5] Auxins activate proton pumps, decreasing the pH in the cells on the dark side of the plant. This acidification of the cell wall region activates enzymes known as expansins which disrupt hydrogen bonds in the cell wall structure, making the cell walls less rigid. In addition, increased proton pump activity leads to more solutes entering the plant cells on the dark side of the plant, which increases the osmotic gradient between the symplast and apoplast of these plant cells.[6] Water then enters the cells along its osmotic gradient, leading to an increase in turgor pressure. The decrease in cell wall strength and increased turgor pressure above a yield threshold[7] causes cells to swell, exerting the mechanical pressure that drives phototropic movement.

Proteins encoded by a second group of genes, PIN genes, have been found to play a major role in phototropism. They are auxin transporters, and it is thought that they are responsible for the polarization of auxin location. Specifically PIN3 has been identified as the primary auxin carrier.[8] It is possible that phototropins receive light and inhibit the activity of PINOID kinase (PID), which then promotes the activity of PIN3. This activation of PIN3 leads to asymmetric distribution of auxin, which then leads to asymmetric elongation of cells in the stem. pin3 mutants had shorter hypocotyls and roots than the wild-type, and the same phenotype was seen in plants grown with auxin efflux inhibitors.[9] Using anti-PIN3 immunogold labeling, movement of the PIN3 protein was observed. PIN3 is normally localized to the surface of hypocotyl and stem, but is also internalized in the presence of Brefeldin A (BFA), an exocytosis inhibitor. This mechanism allows PIN3 to be repositioned in response to an environmental stimulus. PIN3 and PIN7 proteins were thought to play a role in pulse-induced phototropism. The curvature responses in the "pin3" mutant were reduced significantly, but only slightly reduced in "pin7" mutants. There is some redundancy among "PIN1", "PIN3", and "PIN7", but it is thought that PIN3 plays a greater role in pulse-induced phototropism.[10]

...

[Martin68]

14. That's a clear "no." It is a chemical reaction within chloroplasts. No consciousness is needed, just as we breathe

without conscious effort. As CO2 levels in the blood rise, breathing is automatically triggered. If all these actions were conscious we'd spend our entire lives managing all the functions of our entire body - an impossible demand. You do not seem to have the slightest idea of how biological systems work. Plants respond to light through thoroughly documented chemical reactions. Planaria do the same. Nothing mysterious about the chemical reactions involved. I suggest you do little research.

[Uncle Joe]

15. Doesn't the brain operate by chemical reactions?

Yes, the brain operates through a complex interplay of chemical reactions, primarily involving neurotransmitters that facilitate communication between nerve cells (neurons).
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Neurons and Communication:
The brain is composed of billions of neurons, which are specialized cells that transmit information to other cells, muscles, or glands.
Neurotransmitters:
When a neuron needs to communicate with another, it releases chemical messengers called neurotransmitters.
Synapses:
Neurotransmitters travel across a tiny gap called a synapse, where they bind to receptors on the receiving neuron.
Electrical and Chemical Signals:
The process involves both electrical signals within the neuron (axon) and chemical signals (neurotransmitters) between neurons.
Examples of Neurotransmitters:
Some key neurotransmitters include acetylcholine (involved in muscle action and memory), dopamine (associated with pleasure and reward), and serotonin (influences mood and sleep).
Hormones and Brain Function:
Some neurotransmitters, like norepinephrine, also act as hormones and influence mood, stress response, and other bodily functions.
Complex interactions:
The brain uses a complex system of chemical reactions to regulate mood, perception, and behavior.

[Martin68]

17. Yup. The key point is that consciousness rises out of complexity. Individual atoms are not conscious. Individual neurons

aren't conscious. It takes a complex system to create the conditions required for consciousness.

[Jim__]

12. Panpsychism?

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Panpsychism is the view that mentality is fundamental and ubiquitous in the natural world. The view has a long and venerable history in philosophical traditions of both East and West, and has recently enjoyed a revival in analytic philosophy. For its proponents panpsychism offers an attractive middle way between physicalism on the one hand and dualism on the other. The worry with dualism—the view that mind and matter are fundamentally different kinds of thing—is that it leaves us with a radically disunified picture of nature, and the deep difficulty of understanding how mind and brain interact. And whilst physicalism offers a simple and unified vision of the world, this is arguably at the cost of being unable to give a satisfactory account of the emergence of human and animal consciousness. Panpsychism, strange as it may sound on first hearing, promises a satisfying account of the human mind within a unified conception of nature.

...

What is striking about these early attempts to formulate an integrated theory of reality is that the mind and particularly consciousness keep arising as special problems. It is sometimes said that the mind-body problem is not an ancient philosophical worry (see Matson 1966), but it does seem that the problem of consciousness was vexing philosophers 2500 years ago, and in a form redolent of contemporary worries.

We find these worries re-emerging at the start of the scientific revolution, as the mechanistic picture of the world inaugurated by Galileo, Descartes and Newton put the problem of the mind at center stage while paradoxically sweeping it under the rug. Galileo’s mathematisation of nature seemed to leave no space for the qualities we find in experience: the redness of the tomato, the spiciness of the paprika, the sweet smell of flowers. Galileo’s solution, in a move reminiscent of Democritus, was to strip matter of such sensory qualities. This led to the distinction between “primary qualities”—such as shape, size and motion—which were thought to really exist in matter, and “secondary qualities”—such as colours, odours and tastes—which were thought to exist only in the mind of the observer (or to exist as powers to cause ideas in the minds of observers).[3] Galileo and Descartes did not take the radical Democritian step of denying the existence of the secondary qualities; instead they placed them in the soul.[4] However, this of course led to a radical form of dualism, with a sharp metaphysical division between souls with their secondary qualities and bodies with their primary qualities.

In opposition to this dualism, the panpsychist views of Spinoza (1632–77) and Leibniz (1646–1716) can be seen as attempts to provide a more unified picture of nature. Spinoza regarded both mind and matter as simply aspects (or attributes) of the eternal, infinite and unique substance he identified with God Himself. In the illustrative scholium to proposition seven of book two of the Ethics ([1677] 1985) Spinoza writes:

a circle existing in nature and the idea of the existing circle, which is also in God, are one and the same thing … therefore, whether we conceive nature under the attribute of Extension, or under the attribute of Thought … we shall find one and the same order, or one and the same connection of causes….

We might say that, for Spinoza, physical science is a way of studying the psychology of God. There is nothing in nature that does not have a mental aspect—the proper appreciation of matter itself reveals it to be the other side of a mentalistic coin.

Leibniz’s view is sometimes caricatured as: Spinoza with infinitely many substances rather than just one. These substances Leibniz called monads (Leibniz [1714] 1989). Since they are true substances (able to exist independently of any other thing), and since they are absolutely simple, they cannot interact with each other in any way. Yet each monad carries within it complete information about the entire universe. Space, for Leibniz, was reducible to (non-spatial) similarity or correspondence relationships between the intrinsic natures of the monads.

...