Latest / Deep Transformation / Exploring the Mysteries of Consciousness: Asking Life’s Big Questions

Transcript

Exploring the Mysteries of Consciousness: Asking Life’s Big Questions · Deep Transformation

0:00
Welcome
0:00
to
0:00
Part
0:01
one
0:01
with
0:01
Robert
0:02
Lawrence
0:02
Kuhn.
0:03
Robert,
0:03
among
0:04
other
0:04
things,
0:04
is
0:05
the
0:05
creator,
0:05
executive
0:06
producer,
0:06
writer
0:07
and
0:07
host
0:07
of
0:08
the
0:08
PBS
0:08
series
0:09
Closer
0:09
to
0:09
Truth.
0:10
In
0:10
this
0:10
conversation
0:11
we
0:11
explore
0:12
Robert's
0:12
encyclopedic
0:13
paper
0:14
reviewing
0:14
the
0:14
major
0:14
theories
0:15
of
0:15
consciousness
0:16
on
0:16
what
0:17
is
0:17
consciousness.
0:18
I
0:18
think
0:19
you'll
0:19
find
0:19
this
0:19
fascinating.
0:24
Welcome
0:25
to
0:25
Deep
0:25
Transformation.
0:27
Self,
0:27
Society,
0:28
Spirit,
0:29
life
0:30
enhancing,
0:31
paradigm
0:31
rattling
0:32
conversations
0:33
with
0:33
cutting
0:33
edge
0:34
thinkers,
0:34
contemplatives
0:36
and
0:36
activists.
0:37
With
0:37
Dr.
0:38
Roger
0:38
Walsh
0:39
and
0:39
John
0:39
Dupuy
0:40
join
0:41
us
0:41
in
0:41
the
0:41
evolutionary
0:42
fast
0:42
lane
0:43
as
0:43
we
0:43
take
0:44
a
0:44
deep
0:44
dive
0:44
into
0:46
transformational
0:47
practice.
0:48
Peak
0:49
experience,
0:51
profound
0:51
understanding,
0:53
powerful
0:54
contribution.
0:58
I'm
0:58
Roger
0:59
Walsh,
0:59
our
1:00
co
1:00
host
1:00
is
1:00
John
1:01
Dupuy
1:02
and
1:02
our
1:02
guest
1:02
today
1:03
is
1:03
someone
1:04
who
1:04
you
1:05
may
1:05
well
1:05
have
1:05
seen
1:06
on
1:06
television,
1:07
Robert
1:07
Lawrence
1:08
Kuhn,
1:08
who
1:09
is
1:10
many
1:10
things,
1:10
an
1:10
author,
1:11
public
1:11
intellectual
1:13
and
1:13
producer
1:13
of
1:14
the
1:14
remarkably
1:15
successful
1:16
PBS
1:16
series
1:17
Closer
1:18
to
1:18
Truth
1:19
which
1:19
explores
1:20
some
1:20
of
1:20
the
1:20
great
1:20
questions
1:21
of
1:21
all
1:21
time,
1:21
some
1:22
of
1:22
the
1:22
fundamental
1:22
questions
1:23
of
1:23
existence,
1:24
deep
1:24
questions,
1:24
questions
1:25
about
1:25
the
1:25
nature
1:26
of
1:26
life,
1:26
the
1:27
origins
1:27
of
1:27
the
1:27
universe,
1:29
God,
1:30
consciousness.
1:32
And
1:33
Robert's
1:34
remarkable
1:34
in
1:34
the
1:34
wonderful
1:35
way
1:35
he
1:36
approaches
1:37
these
1:38
deep
1:38
questions
1:39
by
1:39
looking
1:39
at
1:40
many
1:40
different
1:40
viewpoints,
1:41
being
1:42
completely
1:43
open
1:43
minded
1:44
and
1:45
really
1:46
welcoming
1:47
a
1:47
range
1:48
of
1:48
perspectives
1:48
that's
1:49
very
1:49
rare
1:50
in
1:50
our
1:50
sectarian
1:51
and
1:52
divided
1:53
polarized
1:54
society
1:54
at
1:54
this
1:55
time.
1:56
One
1:56
of
1:56
the
1:56
great
1:57
questions
1:57
that
1:57
Robert
1:58
has
1:58
investigated
1:59
over
1:59
his
1:59
lifetime
2:00
and
2:00
the
2:00
PBS
2:00
series
2:01
Closer
2:01
to
2:01
Truth
2:02
is
2:02
examined
2:02
and
2:03
some
2:03
of
2:03
his,
2:03
I
2:03
think
2:04
almost
2:05
more
2:05
than
2:05
30
2:05
books
2:07
is
2:07
what
2:07
is
2:08
consciousness?
2:09
And
2:10
he's
2:10
really
2:11
reflected
2:11
on
2:12
this
2:12
over
2:12
much
2:13
of
2:13
his
2:13
life.
2:14
And
2:15
last
2:15
year
2:16
he
2:16
published
2:17
a
2:17
culmination
2:18
of
2:18
all
2:19
this
2:19
thinking
2:19
and
2:20
exploration
2:21
in
2:22
a
2:22
remarkable
2:23
article
2:24
in
2:24
Science
2:25
Scientific
2:25
Journal.
2:26
The
2:27
article
2:27
is
2:27
titled
2:28
A
2:28
Landscape
2:29
of
2:29
Consciousness
2:30
and
2:31
it
2:31
surveys
2:32
over
2:32
200
2:33
different
2:34
theories,
2:34
all
2:34
the
2:35
major
2:35
theories
2:35
of
2:36
east
2:36
and
2:36
west,
2:36
contemporary
2:37
ancient
2:38
theories
2:38
of
2:38
what
2:38
consciousness
2:39
is.
2:40
I've
2:40
been
2:40
reading
2:41
academic
2:41
articles
2:42
for
2:42
40
2:42
years,
2:42
but
2:43
Robert,
2:43
I
2:43
don't
2:43
think
2:43
I've
2:44
ever
2:44
read
2:44
an
2:45
article
2:45
in
2:45
which
2:46
so
2:46
much
2:46
work
2:47
went
2:47
into.
2:49
So
2:50
this
2:50
is
2:51
the
2:51
culmination
2:51
of
2:52
decades
2:52
of
2:53
really
2:53
deep
2:54
thinking
2:54
and
2:54
interviewing
2:55
some
2:55
of
2:55
the
2:56
deepest
2:56
thinkers
2:57
available.
2:58
How
2:58
did
2:58
it
2:58
feel
2:59
to
2:59
be
2:59
writing
2:59
this
3:00
thing?
3:01
Roger,
3:01
first
3:02
of
3:02
all,
3:02
it's
3:02
great
3:02
to
3:02
see
3:02
you
3:03
again.
3:03
We
3:03
were
3:03
together
3:04
very
3:04
early,
3:04
Closer
3:05
to
3:05
Truth.
3:05
I
3:06
think
3:06
we
3:06
were
3:06
something
3:07
like
3:07
15,
3:07
17
3:08
years
3:08
ago.
3:09
You
3:09
look
3:09
exactly
3:10
the
3:10
same,
3:10
so
3:11
I
3:11
don't
3:11
know
3:11
what
3:11
you're
3:12
doing,
3:12
but
3:12
I
3:12
should
3:12
do
3:13
some
3:13
of
3:13
this
3:13
similar.
3:13
John,
3:14
it's
3:14
great
3:14
to
3:14
meet
3:14
you
3:15
as
3:15
well.
3:15
Thank
3:15
you
3:16
Robert.
3:16
Same
3:16
here.
3:16
Wonderful
3:17
to
3:17
reflect
3:17
on
3:18
the
3:18
nature
3:18
of
3:18
consciousness.
3:19
I
3:19
recently
3:20
scared
3:20
myself
3:22
and
3:22
I
3:22
went
3:23
back
3:23
and
3:23
looked
3:24
at
3:24
the
3:24
first
3:25
draft
3:26
of
3:26
the
3:26
article
3:27
that
3:27
would
3:27
become
3:28
the
3:28
Landscape
3:28
of
3:28
Consciousness,
3:29
Consciousness.
3:30
And
3:30
it
3:30
had
3:30
8,000
3:31
words
3:31
completely
3:32
jumbled
3:33
together.
3:34
And
3:34
my
3:35
stomach
3:35
nodded
3:36
at
3:36
that
3:36
point.
3:37
Because
3:37
I
3:37
knew
3:38
that
3:38
the
3:38
person
3:38
who
3:38
wrote
3:39
those
3:39
8,000
3:40
words
3:41
was
3:41
on
3:41
a
3:42
15
3:43
month
3:43
journey
3:43
to
3:44
wind
3:44
up
3:44
with
3:44
175,000
3:46
words.
3:47
And
3:48
it
3:48
was
3:48
a
3:48
constant
3:50
pressure
3:51
that
3:51
I
3:52
felt
3:52
during
3:52
that
3:53
period.
3:53
I
3:54
can
3:54
tell
3:54
you
3:54
the
3:54
backstory
3:55
which
3:55
is
3:56
really
3:56
important
3:57
to
3:57
me
3:57
in
3:58
this
3:58
process.
3:58
Because
3:58
this
3:59
was
3:59
not
4:00
something
4:00
that
4:00
I
4:01
volunteered
4:02
to
4:02
do.
4:02
Was
4:02
not
4:03
my
4:03
idea
4:03
to
4:04
do.
4:04
I
4:04
had
4:04
in
4:04
the
4:04
back
4:05
of
4:05
my
4:05
mind
4:05
maybe
4:06
that
4:06
some
4:07
point
4:07
I
4:07
would
4:07
write
4:07
something.
4:08
But
4:08
I
4:08
never,
4:09
I
4:09
never
4:09
expected
4:10
to
4:10
because
4:10
the
4:10
burden
4:11
of
4:11
it
4:11
would
4:11
be
4:11
too
4:12
heavy.
4:12
I
4:13
love
4:13
doing
4:13
Closer
4:14
to
4:14
Truth.
4:14
About
4:14
a
4:14
third
4:15
of
4:15
Closer
4:15
to
4:15
Truth
4:16
is
4:16
on
4:17
consciousness.
4:17
And
4:18
consciousness
4:18
related
4:19
topics
4:19
like
4:20
free
4:20
will,
4:20
personal
4:21
identity,
4:21
artificial
4:22
intelligence,
4:23
alien
4:24
intelligences
4:25
within
4:25
the
4:25
orbit
4:25
of
4:26
consciousness.
4:27
And
4:27
that's
4:27
been
4:27
a
4:27
great
4:27
vehicle
4:28
to
4:28
express
4:29
my
4:29
interest.
4:30
But
4:30
I
4:30
would
4:30
have
4:31
never
4:31
taken
4:31
the
4:31
burden
4:32
because
4:32
I
4:32
knew
4:32
what
4:33
it
4:33
would
4:33
take
4:33
to
4:33
do.
4:34
To
4:34
put
4:35
something
4:35
on
4:35
paper
4:36
as
4:36
opposed
4:37
to
4:37
speaking.
4:37
It's
4:37
much
4:38
easier
4:38
to
4:38
speak.
4:39
We're
4:39
much
4:39
freer
4:40
in
4:40
terms
4:40
of
4:41
our
4:41
expressions.
4:43
And
4:43
the
4:43
difference
4:43
between
4:44
an
4:44
and
4:45
a.
4:45
The
4:46
when
4:46
you
4:47
speak
4:47
is
4:47
irrelevant,
4:48
but
4:48
on
4:48
paper
4:49
it
4:49
can
4:49
be
4:50
vital.
4:51
And
4:51
so
4:51
I
4:52
never
4:52
would
4:52
have
4:52
done
4:52
that.
4:53
But
4:53
then
4:54
somebody,
4:54
a
4:54
scientist
4:55
who
4:55
I
4:55
met
4:55
through
4:55
Closer
4:56
to
4:56
Truth.
4:57
Who
4:57
was
4:57
on
4:57
the
4:58
board
4:58
of
4:58
a
4:59
scientific
4:59
journal
5:00
asked.
5:00
Said
5:01
that
5:01
they
5:01
were
5:01
going
5:01
to
5:01
do
5:02
the
5:02
journal
5:02
called
5:03
Progress
5:03
in
5:03
Biophysics
5:04
and
5:04
Molecular
5:04
Biology.
5:05
They
5:06
were
5:06
doing
5:06
a
5:06
special
5:07
issue
5:07
on
5:08
quantum
5:09
consciousness.
5:09
Which
5:10
this
5:10
author
5:11
had
5:11
particular
5:12
interest
5:12
in.
5:13
And
5:13
he
5:14
asked
5:14
me
5:14
if
5:14
I
5:15
would
5:15
do
5:15
the
5:15
introductory
5:16
article
5:17
for
5:17
this
5:17
special
5:18
series.
5:19
Just
5:19
to
5:19
give
5:19
sort
5:19
of
5:19
an
5:20
overview,
5:20
a
5:20
short
5:20
overview.
5:21
And
5:21
I
5:21
said
5:22
no.
5:22
I
5:22
said,
5:23
I'm
5:23
too
5:23
burdened,
5:24
I
5:24
can't
5:24
do
5:24
it,
5:25
I
5:25
don't
5:25
have
5:25
the
5:25
time.
5:26
And
5:26
he
5:26
kept
5:27
encouraging
5:28
me
5:28
or
5:28
pestering
5:29
me
5:29
or
5:29
whatever.
5:30
And
5:30
at
5:31
one
5:31
point
5:31
in
5:31
the
5:32
process,
5:32
and
5:32
it
5:32
was
5:32
a
5:32
six
5:33
month
5:33
process
5:33
of
5:34
him
5:34
talking
5:35
about.
5:35
And
5:36
I
5:36
began
5:36
to
5:37
think
5:37
that
5:37
this
5:38
is
5:38
something
5:38
I
5:39
should
5:39
do
5:40
and
5:40
I
5:41
won't
5:41
do
5:41
it.
5:42
But
5:43
maybe
5:43
it's
5:44
something
5:44
that
5:45
if
5:45
I
5:45
don't
5:45
do
5:45
it
5:46
now,
5:46
I
5:46
will
5:47
never
5:47
do
5:47
it.
5:48
And
5:48
so
5:49
then
5:49
I
5:49
agreed
5:50
to
5:50
do
5:50
it,
5:50
not
5:51
having
5:51
any
5:51
idea
5:52
I
5:52
knew
5:52
the
5:52
amount
5:53
of
5:53
work
5:53
it
5:53
would
5:53
take.
5:54
But
5:54
in
5:55
retrospect,
5:55
what
5:56
I
5:56
worried
5:57
about,
5:57
in
5:57
terms
5:57
of
5:58
the
5:58
commitment
5:58
of
5:59
the
5:59
process
5:59
of
5:59
writing.
6:00
It
6:00
turned
6:00
out
6:01
to
6:01
be
6:01
about
6:01
5%
6:02
of
6:02
the
6:02
reality.
6:03
So
6:03
I
6:03
was
6:03
scared
6:04
of
6:04
that
6:04
5%.
6:05
But
6:05
the
6:05
reality
6:06
turned
6:06
out.
6:07
And
6:07
maybe
6:07
it's
6:07
my
6:08
obsessive
6:08
compulsive
6:09
personality
6:09
or
6:10
perfectionism
6:10
or
6:10
whatever
6:11
it
6:11
is.
6:12
And
6:12
so
6:13
it
6:13
began
6:13
a
6:14
very
6:14
long
6:15
process
6:16
that
6:17
I
6:17
was
6:18
totally
6:18
obsessive
6:19
about,
6:20
and
6:20
it
6:21
was
6:21
written
6:22
mostly
6:23
at
6:23
night.
6:24
How
6:24
long
6:24
did
6:24
that
6:25
take?
6:25
Robert,
6:25
what's
6:26
this
6:26
long
6:26
process
6:27
from.
6:27
From
6:27
the
6:28
time
6:28
I
6:28
was
6:29
asked
6:29
to
6:29
do
6:29
it,
6:30
I
6:30
remember,
6:30
I
6:30
think
6:31
it
6:31
was
6:31
in
6:31
November
6:31
of
6:32
2022.
6:33
I
6:33
agreed
6:34
around
6:34
March
6:35
of
6:36
2023
6:36
to
6:37
do
6:37
it.
6:38
And
6:38
then
6:38
the
6:39
first
6:39
draft
6:41
was
6:41
done
6:42
in
6:42
maybe
6:43
it
6:43
was
6:43
21,
6:44
get
6:44
my
6:44
years
6:45
right.
6:45
But
6:46
from
6:46
start
6:46
to
6:47
finish,
6:47
it
6:48
was
6:48
a
6:48
little
6:48
less
6:49
than
6:49
two
6:49
years.
6:50
But
6:50
the
6:51
actual
6:51
writing
6:51
of
6:52
the
6:52
process
6:52
was
6:53
probably
6:53
a
6:54
very
6:54
intense
6:55
nine
6:55
or
6:56
ten
6:56
months.
6:57
So
6:57
an
6:57
intense
6:57
nine
6:58
or
6:58
ten
6:58
months.
6:58
When
6:58
I
6:58
say
6:59
intense,
7:00
I
7:00
mean,
7:01
you
7:01
know,
7:01
12
7:02
hour
7:02
days.
7:03
And
7:03
when
7:03
I
7:03
say
7:03
days,
7:04
they're
7:04
really
7:04
nights
7:05
because
7:05
I
7:05
have
7:05
family
7:06
and
7:06
other
7:06
responsibilities
7:07
during
7:07
days.
7:07
So
7:07
I'd
7:08
be
7:08
writing
7:09
from
7:09
8
7:09
or
7:09
9
7:09
at
7:10
night
7:10
till
7:10
4
7:10
or
7:10
5
7:11
in
7:11
the
7:11
morning,
7:11
literally
7:12
every
7:12
single
7:12
night.
7:13
Now,
7:13
there
7:13
were
7:14
periods
7:14
of
7:14
time
7:14
when
7:14
it
7:14
went
7:15
through
7:15
peer
7:15
review,
7:16
but
7:16
even
7:16
during
7:17
that
7:17
time,
7:17
I
7:17
was
7:18
continuing
7:18
to
7:18
update
7:19
it.
7:20
And
7:20
I
7:21
give
7:21
the
7:21
journal
7:22
Progress
7:22
in
7:22
Biophysics
7:23
and
7:23
Molecular
7:23
Biology
7:24
credit
7:24
for
7:24
two
7:24
things.
7:25
First
7:25
of
7:25
all,
7:25
they
7:25
put
7:26
up
7:26
with
7:26
my
7:26
constant
7:27
changes.
7:27
After
7:27
the
7:28
final,
7:28
final,
7:28
final
7:28
was
7:29
done,
7:29
we
7:30
went
7:30
through
7:30
about
7:30
seven
7:30
changes
7:31
that
7:32
were
7:32
just
7:32
part
7:32
of
7:32
my
7:33
compulsion.
7:33
And
7:33
they
7:34
were
7:34
super
7:35
helpful.
7:36
Not
7:36
necessarily
7:37
pleased,
7:37
but
7:38
super
7:38
helpful
7:39
in
7:39
being
7:39
responsive
7:40
to
7:40
that.
7:41
And
7:42
one
7:42
thing
7:42
that
7:43
occurred,
7:43
and
7:43
this
7:44
is
7:44
how,
7:44
I
7:44
don't
7:44
know,
7:45
serendipity
7:46
kind
7:46
of
7:46
works
7:46
in
7:46
life.
7:47
I'm
7:47
very
7:48
sensitive.
7:49
Anything
7:49
I
7:50
write,
7:50
I'm
7:50
super
7:51
sensitive
7:51
to.
7:52
Once
7:52
I
7:52
finish
7:53
writing,
7:53
I
7:53
forget
7:54
about
7:54
it.
7:54
And
7:54
if
7:54
there
7:54
are
7:55
mistakes
7:55
in
7:55
it,
7:55
it
7:55
doesn't
7:56
bother
7:56
me.
7:56
But
7:57
before
7:57
I
7:58
push
7:58
the
7:58
button
7:58
and
7:59
this
7:59
is
7:59
final,
7:59
I'm
8:00
just
8:00
crazy
8:00
sensitive.
8:02
And
8:02
so
8:02
I
8:03
had
8:03
a
8:03
version
8:04
I
8:04
had
8:04
submitted.
8:04
It
8:05
was
8:05
the
8:06
second
8:06
or
8:06
third
8:07
peer
8:07
review
8:07
because
8:08
each
8:08
time
8:09
I'd
8:09
get
8:10
a
8:10
positive
8:10
peer
8:11
review
8:11
with
8:11
suggestions,
8:12
I
8:12
would
8:12
add
8:13
much
8:13
more
8:13
to
8:13
it.
8:14
So
8:14
the
8:14
editors
8:14
felt
8:15
that
8:15
they
8:15
needed
8:15
to
8:15
do
8:16
another
8:16
peer
8:16
review
8:16
because
8:17
the
8:17
article
8:17
was
8:17
not
8:18
quite
8:18
the
8:18
same
8:18
as
8:19
the
8:19
one
8:19
that
8:19
was
8:19
peer
8:20
reviewed
8:20
the
8:20
last
8:20
time
8:21
I
8:21
added
8:21
stuff,
8:22
which
8:22
was
8:22
fine.
8:23
And
8:23
so
8:23
on
8:23
one
8:24
of
8:24
those
8:24
processes,
8:25
Elsevier,
8:25
which
8:26
is
8:26
a
8:26
top
8:26
science
8:27
publisher,
8:28
has
8:28
a
8:28
policy,
8:28
it's
8:29
good
8:29
policy,
8:30
and
8:30
says
8:30
as
8:30
soon
8:30
as
8:31
an
8:31
article
8:31
is
8:32
accepted
8:32
formally
8:33
for
8:33
publication,
8:34
it's
8:35
put
8:35
on
8:35
the
8:35
website
8:36
within
8:37
two
8:37
or
8:37
three
8:37
days.
8:38
And
8:38
so
8:38
that's
8:39
great
8:39
for
8:39
the
8:39
scientific
8:40
community.
8:40
They
8:40
don't
8:40
have
8:40
to
8:40
wait
8:41
a
8:41
year
8:41
because
8:41
the
8:41
actual
8:42
print
8:42
version
8:43
of
8:43
the
8:43
article
8:43
was
8:44
eight
8:44
months
8:44
later.
8:45
And
8:45
so
8:46
for
8:46
scientific
8:47
articles,
8:47
you
8:47
want
8:48
to
8:48
get
8:48
out
8:48
there.
8:49
And
8:49
so
8:49
what
8:49
happened
8:50
was
8:50
this
8:51
incomplete
8:51
version
8:52
was
8:53
released.
8:54
And
8:54
I
8:55
was
8:55
furious.
8:56
I
8:56
was
8:57
so
8:57
upset
8:58
because
8:58
it
8:59
was
8:59
really
8:59
incomplete.
9:00
It
9:00
was
9:00
about
9:01
130,000
9:02
words,
9:02
a
9:02
huge
9:03
amount
9:03
yet
9:03
to
9:03
do.
9:03
And
9:04
I'll
9:04
explain
9:04
what
9:04
happened.
9:05
I
9:05
was
9:05
really
9:05
beside
9:06
myself
9:06
because
9:06
this
9:07
is.
9:07
People
9:07
are
9:07
not
9:07
going
9:08
to
9:08
read
9:08
this
9:08
thing
9:08
twice.
9:09
They're
9:09
going
9:09
to
9:09
see
9:09
it.
9:09
This
9:09
is
9:10
their
9:10
first
9:10
impression.
9:11
It's
9:11
not
9:11
perfect.
9:12
And
9:12
I
9:12
was
9:12
just
9:13
crazy.
9:13
And
9:14
I
9:14
bet,
9:15
take
9:15
it
9:15
down.
9:16
And
9:16
they
9:16
said,
9:16
it's
9:16
against
9:17
policy.
9:17
We
9:17
don't
9:18
do
9:18
that.
9:18
We
9:18
put
9:19
it
9:19
up.
9:19
And
9:19
I
9:20
said,
9:20
let's
9:20
escalate
9:21
this.
9:21
I
9:21
was
9:21
talking
9:21
to
9:22
an
9:22
associate.
9:22
Escalate.
9:23
You've
9:23
got
9:23
to
9:24
take
9:24
this
9:24
down.
9:25
And
9:25
then
9:25
I
9:26
spoke
9:26
to
9:26
someone
9:26
who
9:26
said,
9:27
the
9:27
only
9:27
time
9:28
we
9:28
take
9:28
things
9:28
down
9:29
is
9:29
when
9:29
there's
9:29
fraud
9:30
in
9:31
the
9:31
article.
9:32
And
9:32
if
9:32
we
9:32
take
9:32
it
9:32
down,
9:33
everybody's
9:33
going
9:33
to
9:33
think
9:34
there's
9:34
fraud
9:34
in
9:34
it
9:35
or
9:35
plagiarism
9:36
or
9:36
something
9:36
bad.
9:37
I
9:37
said,
9:38
I
9:38
don't
9:38
care.
9:39
Take
9:39
it
9:40
down.
9:40
And
9:41
they
9:41
took
9:41
it
9:41
down
9:41
and
9:41
they
9:42
put
9:42
a
9:42
little
9:42
note
9:42
saying,
9:43
we
9:43
expect
9:43
to
9:43
put
9:44
it
9:44
back,
9:44
but
9:44
if
9:44
we
9:44
don't,
9:45
we'll
9:45
explain
9:45
why.
9:46
So
9:46
people
9:47
did
9:47
suspect
9:47
that
9:48
there
9:48
might
9:48
have
9:48
been
9:48
some
9:49
problem.
9:49
But
9:50
anyway,
9:50
I
9:50
tell
9:50
the
9:51
story
9:51
because
9:51
it
9:52
turned
9:52
out
9:52
to
9:52
be
9:52
enormously
9:53
fortuitous
9:54
because
9:54
a
9:54
lot
9:54
of
9:54
people
9:54
read
9:55
it.
9:55
It
9:55
had
9:55
words
9:56
like
9:56
consciousness
9:57
or
9:57
whatever
9:57
that,
9:58
you
9:58
know,
9:58
hit
9:58
people's
9:59
search
9:59
engines.
10:00
And
10:00
I
10:00
had
10:02
probably
10:02
15
10:02
or
10:03
20
10:03
people
10:04
write
10:04
to
10:04
me
10:04
about
10:05
the
10:05
article.
10:06
And
10:06
about,
10:07
I
10:07
don't
10:07
know,
10:07
12
10:08
or
10:08
so
10:09
were
10:09
people
10:10
who
10:10
were
10:11
really
10:11
angry
10:13
that
10:13
I
10:13
left
10:13
out
10:14
X
10:14
or
10:15
Y
10:15
in
10:15
all
10:15
cases,
10:16
I
10:16
hadn't
10:16
really
10:16
heard
10:17
of
10:17
them,
10:17
or
10:17
some
10:17
I
10:17
had
10:18
dismissed
10:19
as
10:19
somebody
10:19
historical
10:20
I
10:20
didn't
10:20
want
10:20
to
10:20
cover.
10:21
And
10:21
I
10:22
learned
10:22
a
10:23
lot.
10:23
And
10:23
there
10:23
was
10:24
people
10:24
who
10:24
suggested
10:25
other
10:25
theories.
10:26
And
10:26
so
10:26
as
10:26
a
10:26
result
10:27
of
10:27
that
10:27
process,
10:28
it
10:28
was
10:28
up
10:28
on
10:28
the
10:29
Web
10:29
for,
10:29
I
10:29
don't
10:29
know,
10:29
two
10:30
weeks
10:30
or
10:30
three
10:30
weeks.
10:31
I
10:31
was
10:32
able
10:32
to
10:32
add
10:32
about
10:33
10
10:34
or
10:34
15
10:34
theories
10:35
that
10:35
people
10:36
had
10:36
told
10:36
me.
10:37
So
10:37
this
10:37
became
10:37
sort
10:38
of
10:38
a
10:38
global
10:39
effort
10:39
to
10:40
discern
10:40
the
10:40
best
10:40
theory.
10:41
So
10:41
it
10:41
turned
10:41
out
10:41
to
10:42
be
10:42
terrific.
10:42
Every
10:43
one
10:43
of
10:43
those
10:43
people
10:44
I
10:44
credit
10:45
in
10:45
the
10:45
article,
10:46
you
10:46
know,
10:46
I
10:46
don't
10:46
know
10:47
who
10:47
they
10:47
are.
10:47
Fewer
10:48
scientists,
10:48
fewer,
10:49
you
10:49
know,
10:49
people
10:49
in
10:50
various
10:50
societies.
10:51
Some
10:51
I
10:52
had
10:52
one.
10:53
In
10:53
one
10:53
case,
10:53
I
10:54
totally
10:54
rejected
10:54
it
10:55
because
10:55
it
10:55
seemed
10:55
so
10:56
outlandish.
10:57
But
10:57
it
10:57
had
10:58
this
10:58
very
10:58
strong
10:59
following.
11:00
And
11:00
therefore,
11:00
to
11:01
properly
11:02
represent
11:02
human
11:03
explorations
11:04
of
11:05
consciousness,
11:05
I
11:06
decided
11:06
to
11:07
study
11:07
that
11:07
as
11:07
bizarre
11:08
as
11:08
I
11:08
thought
11:08
it
11:08
was,
11:09
and
11:09
to
11:09
include
11:10
it
11:10
to
11:10
the
11:10
best
11:10
of
11:11
my
11:11
ability.
11:12
So
11:12
I
11:13
credit,
11:13
you
11:13
know,
11:14
everyone
11:15
who
11:15
participated
11:16
in
11:16
this
11:17
process.
11:17
And
11:17
there
11:17
were,
11:18
you
11:18
know,
11:18
many
11:19
people
11:19
who
11:19
did.
11:20
And
11:20
I
11:20
do
11:20
credit
11:21
them
11:21
in
11:21
the
11:21
article
11:21
for
11:22
helping
11:22
with
11:22
this.
11:22
So
11:23
it's
11:23
not
11:23
only
11:24
What
11:24
I
11:24
have
11:25
known,
11:25
and
11:25
even
11:26
through
11:26
Closer
11:26
to
11:26
Truth.
11:27
But
11:27
I'd
11:28
like
11:28
to
11:28
think
11:28
it's
11:29
a
11:29
collective.
11:30
And
11:30
I'll
11:31
mention
11:31
one
11:31
more
11:31
thing.
11:32
They'll
11:32
stop
11:33
that.
11:34
As
11:34
a
11:34
result
11:34
of
11:34
this
11:35
article,
11:35
it
11:36
had
11:36
a
11:36
very
11:36
big
11:36
impact,
11:36
was
11:37
published
11:37
around
11:37
July
11:38
1st
11:38
of
11:38
last
11:39
year
11:39
and
11:40
cited
11:40
50
11:41
times.
11:41
And
11:41
it's
11:42
looked
11:42
upon
11:42
as
11:42
a
11:42
standard.
11:43
A
11:44
lot
11:44
of
11:44
people
11:44
encouraged
11:44
me
11:44
to
11:45
write
11:45
a
11:45
book
11:45
about
11:46
this
11:46
instead
11:47
of
11:47
a
11:47
scientific
11:47
paper.
11:48
In
11:48
fact,
11:48
the
11:48
first
11:49
peer
11:49
reviewer
11:49
said
11:49
this
11:50
should
11:50
be
11:50
a
11:50
book
11:51
instead
11:51
of
11:52
a
11:52
paper.
11:52
But
11:52
I
11:53
resisted
11:53
that
11:53
and
11:54
I'm
11:54
happy
11:54
I
11:54
did.
11:55
And
11:55
so
11:55
for
11:55
a
11:55
few
11:56
days,
11:56
I
11:56
started
11:56
to
11:56
put
11:56
together
11:57
a
11:57
book
11:57
proposal.
11:58
And
11:58
then
11:58
I
11:59
realized
11:59
if
11:59
I
11:59
do
11:59
a
11:59
book,
12:00
what's
12:01
going
12:01
to
12:01
happen
12:01
is
12:02
I'm
12:02
going
12:02
to
12:03
spend
12:04
a
12:04
year
12:05
changing
12:05
it
12:05
from
12:06
a
12:06
paper
12:06
to
12:06
a
12:06
book,
12:07
and
12:07
then
12:08
it's
12:08
going
12:08
to
12:08
take
12:08
another
12:09
almost
12:09
year
12:09
to
12:09
publish.
12:10
And
12:10
by
12:10
that
12:11
time,
12:12
a
12:12
third
12:12
of
12:12
the
12:12
theories
12:13
are
12:13
going
12:13
to
12:13
be
12:13
changed.
12:14
There'll
12:14
be
12:14
more,
12:14
It'll
12:14
be
12:15
out
12:15
of
12:15
date.
12:16
So
12:16
I
12:17
stopped
12:17
that
12:17
and
12:18
had
12:18
the
12:18
idea
12:19
to
12:19
do
12:19
a
12:20
Landscape
12:20
of
12:20
Consciousness
12:21
website,
12:23
which
12:23
will
12:23
be
12:24
the
12:24
central
12:25
location
12:26
where
12:26
people
12:27
can
12:27
look
12:27
for
12:28
a
12:28
scientific
12:29
but
12:29
not
12:30
elaborate
12:31
discussion
12:31
of
12:31
each
12:31
of
12:32
the
12:32
major
12:32
theories
12:33
presented
12:34
by
12:34
the
12:34
individuals
12:35
themselves.
12:35
And
12:35
we're
12:35
in
12:36
the
12:36
process
12:36
of
12:36
building
12:36
that.
12:37
We
12:37
will
12:37
do
12:37
a
12:38
beta
12:38
launch
12:38
this
12:38
summer
12:39
and
12:39
a
12:39
full
12:39
launch
12:40
before
12:40
the
12:40
end
12:40
of
12:41
the
12:41
year.
12:41
And
12:42
it
12:42
will
12:42
be.
12:43
We'll
12:43
have
12:43
all
12:43
the
12:44
theories,
12:44
it'll
12:44
have
12:44
a
12:44
lot
12:45
of
12:45
material,
12:46
references,
12:47
and
12:47
an
12:47
important
12:47
point
12:48
that
12:49
there
12:49
will
12:49
be
12:49
a
12:49
notation
12:50
on
12:50
each
12:51
theory
12:51
when
12:52
the
12:52
author
12:52
of
12:52
that
12:53
theory
12:53
themselves
12:54
authenticates
12:55
it.
12:55
Because
12:55
the
12:55
first
12:56
version,
12:56
I
12:56
wrote
12:57
everything
12:58
and
12:58
I
12:58
use
12:58
the
12:58
author's
12:59
words,
12:59
and
12:59
I
12:59
did
13:00
the
13:00
best
13:00
I
13:00
can.
13:01
When
13:01
I
13:01
did
13:01
an
13:02
individual
13:02
theory,
13:04
I
13:04
would
13:04
inhabit
13:05
that
13:05
theory
13:06
for
13:06
a
13:07
day
13:07
or
13:07
two.
13:07
And
13:08
for
13:08
that
13:08
day
13:08
or
13:08
two,
13:09
it
13:10
was
13:10
like
13:10
it
13:10
was
13:10
my
13:11
theory.
13:11
And
13:12
I
13:12
was
13:12
determined
13:13
to
13:13
explain
13:13
that
13:14
in
13:14
the
13:14
best
13:14
possible
13:15
way
13:15
so
13:15
that
13:16
people
13:16
understand
13:16
it
13:17
and
13:17
it
13:18
is
13:18
the
13:18
true
13:18
answer.
13:19
And
13:19
so
13:19
I
13:19
want
13:19
everybody
13:20
to
13:20
know
13:20
it.
13:21
I
13:21
had
13:21
that
13:21
approach
13:22
to
13:22
every
13:22
single
13:23
theory,
13:23
but
13:23
it
13:23
was
13:23
still
13:24
my
13:24
words,
13:25
a
13:25
few
13:26
of
13:26
the
13:26
theories.
13:26
You
13:27
know,
13:27
of
13:27
the
13:27
200,
13:28
I
13:28
think
13:28
there
13:28
are
13:28
200
13:29
major
13:29
theories
13:29
and
13:29
another
13:30
50
13:30
sort
13:30
of
13:30
minor
13:31
ones.
13:31
About
13:32
30,
13:32
35
13:33
people
13:33
of
13:34
that
13:34
group,
13:34
some
13:35
of
13:35
the
13:35
prominent
13:35
names
13:36
I
13:36
know
13:36
personally
13:36
from
13:37
Closer
13:37
to
13:37
Truth,
13:38
and
13:38
so
13:38
I
13:38
could
13:38
send
13:39
it
13:39
to
13:39
them
13:39
ahead
13:39
of
13:40
time.
13:40
I
13:40
didn't
13:41
feel
13:41
badly
13:41
about
13:42
that
13:42
because
13:43
I
13:43
knew
13:43
them
13:44
and
13:44
everybody
13:45
wrote
13:45
back.
13:46
Some
13:46
made
13:46
very
13:47
few
13:47
changes
13:48
and
13:48
a
13:49
handful
13:49
made
13:50
significant
13:50
changes.
13:51
And
13:51
I
13:52
said,
13:52
you
13:52
know,
13:52
sorry,
13:52
I
13:52
missed.
13:53
And
13:53
they
13:53
said,
13:53
no,
13:53
no,
13:53
you
13:53
got
13:54
it
13:54
right.
13:54
But
13:54
that
13:54
was
13:54
three
13:55
years
13:55
ago.
13:55
Now
13:55
my
13:56
theory
13:56
is
13:56
this,
13:56
you
13:56
were
13:56
using
13:57
an
13:57
older,
13:57
older
13:57
papers.
13:58
So
13:58
we
13:59
want
13:59
this
13:59
website
13:59
to
14:00
then
14:00
be
14:00
authenticated
14:01
by
14:01
the
14:01
author
14:02
themselves.
14:02
And
14:02
for
14:02
those
14:03
who,
14:03
you
14:03
know,
14:04
sadly
14:04
have
14:04
died,
14:05
we'll
14:05
find
14:05
the
14:06
person
14:06
in
14:06
the
14:06
world
14:07
who
14:07
is
14:07
most
14:08
knowledgeable,
14:08
the
14:09
expert
14:09
about
14:09
their
14:10
theories.
14:10
So
14:11
we
14:11
want
14:11
this
14:11
to
14:11
be
14:11
an
14:12
organic
14:12
process.
14:12
We
14:13
want
14:13
it
14:13
to
14:13
be
14:14
a
14:14
process
14:15
that
14:15
globally
14:16
people
14:16
can
14:16
engage
14:17
with.
14:17
Because
14:18
I
14:18
believe,
14:18
and
14:19
I
14:19
know
14:19
you
14:20
do
14:20
as
14:20
well,
14:20
that
14:21
consciousness
14:22
is
14:22
perhaps
14:22
the
14:23
single
14:23
most
14:24
important
14:24
question,
14:25
unifying
14:25
question
14:26
that
14:26
humanity
14:27
can
14:27
explore.
14:29
Well,
14:31
well
14:31
Robert,
14:32
so
14:32
much
14:32
in
14:32
what
14:32
you
14:32
said
14:33
and
14:33
I,
14:33
I'm
14:34
stunned
14:34
to
14:34
think,
14:35
think
14:35
of
14:35
working
14:36
till
14:36
riding
14:37
till
14:37
5am
14:38
each
14:38
morning
14:39
puts
14:39
my
14:39
little
14:39
effort
14:40
in
14:40
comparison.
14:41
But
14:42
some
14:42
of
14:42
the
14:42
things
14:42
that
14:42
are
14:42
really
14:43
striking
14:43
about
14:44
this
14:44
article,
14:45
first
14:46
is
14:46
its
14:46
size.
14:47
It's
14:47
just.
14:48
Second,
14:48
it's
14:48
comprehensive.
14:49
I
14:50
think
14:50
you
14:51
really
14:52
did
14:53
include
14:54
every
14:54
major
14:54
and
14:55
a
14:55
hell
14:55
lot
14:55
of
14:56
minor
14:56
theories
14:56
I'd
14:57
ever
14:57
heard
14:57
of
14:57
in
14:58
this
14:58
survey.
14:59
The
14:59
other
15:00
thing
15:01
was
15:01
the
15:01
open
15:01
mindedness.
15:03
You
15:04
are
15:04
just
15:04
not
15:05
pushing
15:06
any
15:06
one
15:07
theory
15:07
and
15:07
that's
15:08
very
15:08
rare
15:09
in
15:09
science
15:10
and
15:10
in
15:11
the
15:11
field
15:11
of
15:11
consciousness
15:12
most
15:12
people
15:13
are
15:13
pushing
15:13
a
15:14
particular
15:14
theory,
15:15
but
15:16
you
15:16
really
15:16
are
15:16
giving
15:17
an
15:17
open
15:17
minded
15:19
perspective.
15:19
So
15:20
anything
15:20
you'd
15:20
like
15:21
to
15:21
say
15:21
about
15:21
that?
15:21
And
15:21
also
15:22
what
15:22
are
15:23
the
15:23
main
15:23
differentiators
15:24
between
15:25
the
15:25
theories?
15:27
Okay,
15:27
so
15:27
let's
15:28
deal
15:28
with
15:28
those
15:28
separately.
15:29
In
15:29
the
15:30
first
15:30
part
15:31
my
15:31
approach
15:32
is
15:34
a
15:34
desire
15:35
I
15:35
guess
15:36
I
15:36
have
15:36
two
15:37
fundamental
15:38
ideas
15:38
for
15:39
the
15:39
whole
15:40
program
15:41
which
15:41
was
15:41
the
15:41
paper
15:42
it's
15:43
Closer
15:43
to
15:43
Truth
15:44
to
15:44
begin
15:44
with,
15:45
the
15:45
paper
15:45
itself
15:46
and
15:46
then
15:46
the
15:47
website
15:47
which
15:47
will
15:47
be
15:47
part
15:48
of
15:48
Closer
15:48
to
15:48
Truth
15:49
website.
15:49
And
15:50
the
15:50
first
15:50
is
15:51
that
15:52
at
15:52
this
15:52
time
15:53
in
15:54
our
15:54
intellectual
15:55
spiritual
15:55
call
15:56
what
15:56
you
15:56
will
15:56
development
15:57
we
15:58
should
15:58
be
15:59
looking
15:59
to
16:00
expand
16:01
our
16:01
way
16:01
of
16:02
thinking
16:02
about
16:02
consciousness,
16:04
exploring
16:04
all
16:05
different
16:05
opportunities
16:06
and
16:06
not
16:06
close
16:07
off
16:08
discussion
16:09
too
16:09
early.
16:10
That
16:10
does
16:10
not
16:11
mean
16:11
be
16:11
irrational
16:12
or
16:13
accept
16:14
crazy
16:14
ideas.
16:15
I
16:15
mean
16:15
it
16:15
has
16:15
to
16:15
be
16:15
a
16:15
standard
16:16
of
16:16
rationality
16:17
that
16:18
somebody
16:18
makes
16:18
an
16:19
arbitrary
16:19
decision.
16:20
But
16:20
this
16:20
is
16:20
a
16:21
time
16:21
we
16:21
need
16:21
to
16:21
be
16:22
expansive
16:22
in
16:23
our
16:23
understanding
16:24
because
16:25
as
16:25
people
16:26
have
16:26
noted
16:27
as
16:27
we've
16:27
learned
16:28
more
16:28
in
16:28
neuroscience
16:29
and
16:29
that
16:29
was
16:30
my
16:30
original
16:30
degree,
16:31
UCLA
16:31
Brain
16:32
Research
16:32
Institute
16:33
where
16:33
I
16:33
got
16:34
my
16:34
doctorate.
16:35
So
16:35
I'm
16:35
very
16:35
familiar
16:35
with,
16:36
with
16:36
brain
16:36
science.
16:36
But
16:37
as
16:37
brain
16:37
science
16:37
has
16:38
exploded
16:39
over
16:39
the,
16:40
over
16:41
the,
16:41
I
16:41
don't
16:41
know,
16:41
60
16:42
years
16:42
since
16:42
I
16:42
got
16:43
my
16:43
doctorate,
16:44
the
16:44
odd
16:44
thing,
16:45
and
16:45
this
16:46
Neil,
16:46
Seth
16:46
and
16:47
Tiff
16:47
Bain
16:47
have
16:48
pointed
16:48
out,
16:48
which
16:48
I
16:49
like,
16:49
the
16:50
odd
16:50
thing
16:50
is
16:50
that
16:51
the
16:51
more
16:51
you
16:52
learn
16:52
in
16:52
science,
16:53
the
16:53
narrow
16:54
and
16:54
narrow
16:54
you
16:54
get
16:55
on
16:55
your
16:55
theories.
16:56
That's
16:56
in
16:56
particle
16:57
physics,
16:57
molecular
16:57
biology,
16:58
chemistry,
16:59
whatever.
17:00
But
17:00
in
17:00
consciousness
17:01
studies,
17:01
the
17:01
more
17:02
neuroscience
17:03
has
17:03
learned
17:03
over
17:03
these
17:04
60
17:04
years,
17:04
the
17:05
more
17:05
theories
17:05
we
17:06
have
17:08
and
17:08
that
17:08
contradicts
17:10
an
17:10
understanding.
17:11
To
17:12
me,
17:12
that
17:13
is
17:13
a
17:13
very
17:13
telling
17:15
thought.
17:15
And
17:16
therefore
17:17
I
17:17
don't
17:17
want
17:17
to
17:18
close
17:18
off
17:19
discussion
17:20
too
17:20
soon.
17:21
In
17:21
fact,
17:21
I
17:22
begin
17:22
the
17:22
paper
17:22
with
17:23
something
17:23
like
17:24
this
17:24
is
17:25
the
17:25
first
17:25
of
17:25
175,000
17:27
words.
17:27
The
17:27
first
17:27
paragraph
17:28
says
17:29
explanations
17:30
of
17:30
consciousness
17:31
about
17:31
bound.
17:32
And
17:32
the
17:32
radical
17:33
diversity
17:33
of
17:34
the
17:34
theories
17:34
is
17:35
telling.
17:35
That
17:35
was
17:35
telling
17:36
us
17:36
something.
17:37
And
17:37
that
17:37
these
17:38
explanations
17:38
or
17:39
theories
17:40
work
17:40
at
17:41
astonishingly
17:42
divergent
17:43
orders
17:44
of
17:44
magnitude
17:45
and
17:46
putative
17:46
realms
17:47
of
17:47
reality.
17:48
So
17:48
what
17:48
that
17:48
means
17:49
is
17:49
some
17:50
consciousness
17:50
theories
17:51
are
17:52
quantum
17:53
in
17:53
the
17:53
sense
17:53
of
17:54
subatomic
17:55
particles
17:55
and
17:55
the
17:56
quantum
17:56
entanglement
17:57
of
17:57
subatomic
17:58
particles.
17:59
And
17:59
some
17:59
theories
18:00
work
18:00
on
18:01
parts
18:01
of
18:01
the
18:01
brain,
18:02
neural
18:02
correlative
18:03
consciousness,
18:04
some
18:04
on
18:04
the
18:04
whole
18:05
brain,
18:05
some
18:05
on
18:05
the,
18:06
you
18:06
know,
18:06
circuitry
18:07
of
18:07
the
18:07
brain.
18:07
Gerald
18:08
Ellen
18:08
Edelund
18:09
Neural
18:09
recurrent
18:10
circuitry
18:11
or
18:11
global
18:11
workspace
18:12
theory.
18:13
And
18:13
some
18:13
work
18:14
on
18:14
just
18:15
the
18:15
entire
18:15
brain
18:16
itself.
18:16
Electromagnetic
18:17
theories
18:18
or
18:18
integrated
18:19
information
18:19
theory.
18:20
And
18:20
then
18:20
some
18:21
go
18:21
beyond
18:21
the
18:22
brain
18:22
in
18:22
terms
18:23
of
18:23
extended
18:24
mind
18:24
in
18:25
one
18:25
sense
18:25
and
18:26
another
18:26
sense,
18:27
various
18:27
transparency
18:28
theory,
18:29
where
18:29
the
18:29
external
18:30
stimulus
18:31
is
18:31
involved
18:31
in
18:31
the
18:31
process.
18:32
And
18:32
then
18:32
we
18:33
get
18:33
into
18:33
the
18:33
spiritual
18:34
aspects
18:34
where
18:34
some
18:35
people
18:35
think
18:35
there's
18:35
cosmic
18:36
consciousness
18:37
and
18:37
consciousness
18:37
is
18:38
the
18:38
entire
18:38
sense
18:39
of
18:39
reality
18:40
idealism.
18:40
And
18:41
so
18:41
you
18:41
have
18:41
this
18:42
enormous
18:43
range
18:44
of
18:44
magnitude
18:45
where
18:45
the
18:45
core
18:46
of
18:46
consciousness
18:47
is
18:47
and
18:47
even
18:48
the
18:48
kinds
18:48
of
18:48
reality
18:49
involved.
18:50
And
18:51
so
18:51
that's
18:52
point
18:52
one
18:53
of
18:53
what
18:53
I
18:53
want
18:53
to
18:54
achieve.
18:55
Point
18:55
two
18:57
is
18:57
that
18:58
the
18:58
big
18:58
questions
18:59
that
18:59
humanity
19:00
asks
19:01
historically
19:02
and
19:03
that
19:04
we're
19:04
focusing
19:04
on
19:05
today
19:05
in
19:06
some
19:06
real
19:06
sense
19:06
because
19:07
of
19:07
AI
19:07
consciousness.
19:08
So
19:09
what
19:09
are
19:09
those
19:09
big
19:10
questions?
19:10
What
19:10
is
19:11
is
19:11
there
19:11
and
19:11
what
19:12
is
19:12
meaning,
19:12
purpose
19:13
or
19:13
value
19:14
in
19:14
life?
19:15
Is
19:15
there
19:15
life
19:16
after
19:16
death?
19:17
Could
19:17
AI
19:18
become
19:18
conscious
19:19
in
19:19
a
19:19
real
19:19
sense
19:19
as
19:20
we
19:20
are
19:20
conscious?
19:21
Is
19:21
virtual
19:22
immortality
19:23
possible
19:23
where
19:24
you
19:24
can
19:24
upload
19:25
your
19:25
first
19:25
person
19:26
personality
19:27
to
19:27
a
19:27
non
19:27
biological
19:28
medium
19:28
and
19:29
live
19:29
beyond
19:29
the
19:30
decay
19:31
of
19:31
your
19:31
body?
19:32
What
19:32
is
19:32
free
19:33
will?
19:33
What
19:33
is
19:33
personal
19:34
identity?
19:34
These
19:35
are
19:35
the
19:36
big
19:36
questions
19:37
of
19:37
human
19:37
sentience.
19:38
Why
19:39
is
19:39
there
19:39
something
19:39
rather
19:40
than
19:40
nothing?
19:40
Yeah,
19:41
that's
19:41
a
19:41
different
19:41
question.
19:42
I
19:42
like
19:42
that.
19:43
So
19:43
let
19:43
me
19:43
get
19:43
back
19:43
to
19:44
that
19:44
one.
19:45
But
19:45
in
19:45
terms
19:46
of
19:46
these
19:46
big
19:47
questions
19:48
that
19:48
I
19:48
said,
19:49
which
19:49
are
19:49
personal,
19:49
something
19:50
rather
19:50
than
19:50
nothing
19:50
is
19:50
a
19:50
different
19:51
question.
19:51
It's
19:51
not
19:51
in
19:51
this
19:52
category.
19:52
This
19:52
category
19:53
are
19:53
the
19:53
human
19:54
kinds
19:54
of
19:54
questions.
19:55
Do
19:55
we
19:55
live
19:55
after
19:55
death
19:55
as
19:56
AI
19:56
consciousness
19:57
possible?
19:58
Can
19:58
we
19:58
upload
19:59
what
19:59
is
19:59
free
19:59
will,
20:00
which
20:00
is
20:00
really
20:00
a
20:01
mystery,
20:01
even
20:01
though
20:01
a
20:02
lot
20:02
of
20:02
people
20:02
think
20:02
it's
20:02
not.
20:03
And
20:03
personal
20:03
identity,
20:04
how
20:04
do
20:04
we
20:04
maintain
20:05
the
20:05
same
20:05
personality
20:06
even
20:06
though
20:06
all
20:06
our
20:06
molecules
20:07
change
20:07
every
20:07
few
20:08
months
20:08
or
20:08
whatever?
20:08
And
20:09
so
20:09
all
20:10
of
20:10
those
20:10
kinds
20:10
of
20:10
questions
20:11
which
20:11
are
20:11
addressed
20:12
in
20:12
a
20:12
massive
20:13
literature,
20:14
historically
20:14
and
20:14
currently.
20:15
All
20:16
of
20:16
those
20:16
questions
20:17
I
20:17
say
20:18
are
20:18
dependent
20:19
upon
20:19
your
20:19
theory
20:20
of
20:20
consciousness.
20:21
And
20:22
if
20:22
you
20:22
discuss
20:22
any
20:23
one
20:23
of
20:23
those
20:23
without
20:24
addressing
20:25
a
20:25
theory
20:25
of
20:26
consciousness
20:26
that
20:26
underlies
20:27
it,
20:28
you
20:28
have
20:29
underplayed
20:30
and
20:31
misguided
20:32
your
20:32
own
20:32
thinking,
20:33
because
20:34
you
20:34
may.
20:35
You
20:35
have
20:35
to
20:35
have
20:36
a
20:36
theory.
20:36
You
20:36
have
20:36
a
20:36
theory
20:37
of
20:37
consciousness,
20:37
whether
20:37
you
20:38
know
20:38
it
20:38
or
20:38
not.
20:39
And
20:39
that's
20:39
the
20:39
problem.
20:39
Most
20:40
people
20:40
have
20:40
a
20:40
theory
20:41
of
20:41
conscious
20:41
they
20:42
are
20:42
assuming
20:43
when
20:43
they
20:43
explore
20:43
these
20:44
questions
20:44
of
20:44
free
20:45
will
20:45
or
20:45
life
20:45
after
20:46
death
20:46
or
20:46
whatever,
20:47
but
20:47
they
20:47
don't
20:48
specify
20:48
it
20:48
and
20:48
they
20:48
don't
20:49
realize
20:49
there
20:49
are
20:49
other
20:49
theories.
20:50
For
20:51
example,
20:51
most
20:51
of
20:52
the
20:52
people
20:53
who
20:53
expect
20:53
AI
20:54
to
20:54
become
20:54
conscious,
20:55
in
20:55
fact
20:55
make.
20:56
That
20:56
is
20:56
a
20:57
fundamental,
20:58
almost
20:58
an
20:58
assumption.
20:59
I
20:59
mean,
20:59
it
20:59
will
21:00
at
21:00
some
21:00
point,
21:00
whether
21:01
in
21:01
next
21:02
week
21:02
or
21:02
in
21:03
10
21:03
years
21:03
or
21:03
in
21:03
50
21:04
years.
21:04
I
21:04
mean,
21:04
it's
21:05
just
21:05
a
21:05
question
21:05
of
21:06
when
21:06
they
21:07
are
21:07
assuming
21:08
a
21:08
particular
21:09
theory
21:09
of
21:09
consciousness
21:11
called
21:11
computational
21:12
functionalism.
21:13
We
21:13
can
21:13
analyze
21:13
each
21:14
of
21:14
those
21:14
terms
21:14
later
21:15
in
21:15
terms
21:15
of
21:15
what
21:16
that
21:16
means.
21:16
That's
21:17
their
21:17
underlying
21:18
assumption.
21:19
And
21:19
if
21:19
that
21:20
theory
21:21
of
21:21
computational
21:22
functionalism
21:22
I
21:22
have
21:23
in
21:23
the
21:23
paper,
21:24
one
21:24
category
21:25
is
21:25
functionalism,
21:25
another
21:26
is
21:26
computational.
21:27
You
21:27
put
21:27
them
21:27
together,
21:28
if
21:28
that
21:28
is
21:29
the
21:29
theory
21:29
of
21:29
consciousness,
21:30
then
21:30
they're
21:31
right.
21:31
Then
21:31
AI
21:32
will
21:32
become
21:32
conscious.
21:33
But
21:33
I
21:34
got
21:34
200
21:34
other
21:34
theories
21:35
in
21:35
there
21:35
that
21:36
they
21:36
don't
21:36
even
21:36
know
21:36
about,
21:37
that
21:37
they're
21:37
not
21:37
even
21:37
considering.
21:39
So
21:39
I'm
21:39
not
21:39
saying
21:39
that
21:40
that's
21:40
wrong.
21:40
I'm
21:41
saying
21:41
that
21:41
underlying
21:42
your
21:43
approach
21:43
to
21:43
all
21:44
of
21:44
these
21:44
fundamental
21:45
questions
21:46
is
21:46
your
21:46
theory
21:47
of
21:47
consciousness.
21:47
So
21:47
those
21:47
are
21:47
the
21:48
two
21:48
big
21:48
ideas
21:49
of
21:49
the
21:49
paper.
21:50
One,
21:50
to
21:50
be
21:50
expansive
21:51
at
21:51
expanding
21:52
our
21:53
universe
21:53
of
21:54
understanding
21:54
of
21:54
what
21:55
consciousness
21:55
is
21:56
by
21:56
exploring
21:57
a
21:57
whole
21:57
bunch
21:57
of
21:57
theories.
21:58
It's
21:58
my
21:58
arbitrary
21:59
decision
21:59
what's
22:00
in
22:00
and
22:00
what's
22:00
not.
22:00
I've
22:01
tried
22:01
my
22:01
best.
22:02
I
22:02
never
22:02
say
22:03
this
22:03
is
22:03
the
22:03
be
22:04
all
22:04
and
22:04
end
22:04
all.
22:05
That's
22:05
why
22:05
I
22:05
call
22:05
it
22:06
a
22:06
landscape
22:07
of
22:07
consciousness.
22:07
Not
22:08
the
22:08
landscape.
22:09
The
22:09
landscape
22:10
is
22:10
too
22:10
arrogant.
22:11
I'm
22:11
trying
22:12
not
22:12
to
22:12
be
22:12
arrogant.
22:13
I'm
22:13
trying
22:13
to
22:13
be,
22:14
you
22:14
know,
22:14
and
22:14
again,
22:15
I'm
22:15
in
22:15
my
22:16
early
22:16
version.
22:16
A
22:17
lot
22:17
other
22:17
people
22:18
had
22:18
other
22:18
theories
22:18
that
22:19
they
22:19
were
22:19
right,
22:19
I
22:20
included.
22:20
And
22:20
since
22:21
the
22:21
paper
22:21
was
22:21
published,
22:22
I've
22:22
gotten
22:22
100
22:23
or
22:23
more
22:23
theories,
22:24
a
22:24
few
22:24
of
22:25
which
22:25
will
22:25
be
22:25
in
22:26
the
22:26
landscape
22:26
website
22:27
because
22:27
they
22:27
are
22:28
worthy
22:28
to
22:29
be,
22:29
that
22:29
there's
22:29
some
22:29
interesting
22:30
idea
22:30
about
22:31
them
22:31
that
22:31
is
22:31
helpful.
22:33
And
22:33
so
22:33
during
22:34
this
22:34
time,
22:34
we
22:35
want
22:35
to
22:35
be
22:35
expansive.
22:36
We
22:36
want
22:36
to
22:36
be.
22:36
That
22:37
doesn't
22:37
mean
22:37
we're
22:37
eliminating
22:38
our
22:38
critical
22:38
thinking
22:39
or
22:39
evaluative
22:40
process,
22:40
But
22:41
I
22:41
want
22:41
to
22:41
get
22:41
them
22:41
all
22:42
on
22:42
the
22:42
table.
22:42
Then
22:42
we
22:43
can
22:43
go
22:43
through
22:43
an
22:43
Evaluation
22:44
process.
22:45
And
22:45
this
22:45
whole
22:45
process
22:46
will
22:46
give
22:46
us
22:46
a
22:47
richer
22:47
understanding
22:48
of
22:48
consciousness.
22:48
I'm
22:48
under
22:49
no
22:49
illusion
22:50
that
22:50
I
22:50
can
22:50
come
22:50
up
22:51
with
22:51
a
22:51
real
22:51
answer.
22:52
But
22:52
I
22:52
do
22:53
think
22:53
that
22:54
understanding
22:55
the
22:55
landscape
22:56
and
22:56
all
22:56
these
22:56
different
22:56
theories
22:57
will
22:57
give
22:58
us
22:58
a
22:58
deeper
22:59
appreciation
22:59
of,
23:00
A,
23:00
what
23:00
consciousness
23:01
is,
23:01
and
23:02
B,
23:02
how
23:02
to
23:02
approach
23:03
these
23:03
big
23:03
questions
23:04
of
23:04
human
23:05
existence.
23:05
Now,
23:06
two
23:06
other
23:06
things
23:06
that
23:07
you
23:07
both
23:07
mentioned
23:08
that
23:09
articulate
23:09
and
23:09
you
23:10
can
23:10
tell
23:10
me
23:10
which
23:10
one
23:10
we
23:11
should
23:11
talk
23:11
about.
23:11
One
23:11
is
23:12
my
23:12
own
23:13
thinking,
23:13
and
23:14
there's
23:14
a
23:14
little
23:14
story
23:14
behind
23:15
that.
23:16
And
23:16
the
23:16
second
23:17
is,
23:17
why
23:17
is
23:17
there
23:18
something
23:18
rather
23:18
than
23:18
nothing?
23:18
Because
23:19
that
23:19
is
23:19
a
23:19
critical
23:20
question.
23:21
And
23:21
let
23:21
me
23:21
deal
23:21
with
23:22
that
23:22
one
23:22
first,
23:22
John,
23:23
because
23:23
that
23:24
is.
23:25
That
23:25
to
23:25
me,
23:26
wasn't
23:27
the
23:28
question,
23:28
why
23:28
is
23:28
there
23:28
something
23:29
rather
23:29
than
23:29
nothing?
23:29
And
23:30
consciousness
23:30
have
23:31
been
23:31
my
23:31
two
23:32
sort
23:33
of
23:33
spiritual
23:33
burdens
23:34
that
23:34
I
23:34
have
23:35
kept
23:35
since
23:36
almost
23:36
a
23:36
child.
23:37
And
23:37
that
23:38
those
23:38
two
23:39
have
23:39
motivated
23:39
me
23:40
very
23:40
strongly.
23:41
And
23:41
I've
23:41
written
23:42
not
23:42
175,000
23:43
words
23:44
on
23:44
why
23:44
I
23:44
said
23:44
something
23:45
rather
23:45
than
23:45
nothing,
23:45
But
23:46
I
23:46
have
23:46
written
23:47
on
23:47
that
23:47
and
23:47
have
23:47
thought
23:48
deeply
23:48
about
23:48
that
23:49
is
23:49
a
23:49
major
23:49
theme
23:50
of
23:50
close
23:50
to
23:50
the
23:51
truth,
23:51
why
23:51
not
23:51
nothing?
23:52
We've
23:53
explored
23:53
that
23:53
in
23:54
very
23:54
great
23:54
depth.
23:55
And
23:55
that,
23:55
to
23:55
me,
23:56
these
23:56
are
23:56
the
23:57
two
23:57
fundamental
23:57
questions
23:58
of
23:58
existence.
23:59
In
23:59
my
23:59
view,
24:01
that
24:01
question.
24:01
I'd
24:02
heard
24:02
it
24:02
before,
24:02
but
24:02
when
24:03
I
24:03
was
24:03
watching
24:03
one
24:03
of
24:03
your
24:04
shows,
24:04
you
24:04
reminded
24:04
me
24:05
of
24:05
it
24:05
became
24:06
a
24:06
big
24:06
question
24:07
for
24:07
me
24:07
too.
24:08
Why
24:08
is
24:08
there
24:08
something
24:09
rather
24:09
than
24:09
nothing?
24:10
And
24:10
at
24:11
first,
24:11
it
24:11
would
24:11
just
24:11
kind
24:12
of
24:12
freak
24:12
me
24:12
out.
24:12
You
24:13
know,
24:13
I
24:13
was
24:13
like.
24:15
And
24:16
then
24:16
at
24:16
this
24:16
point,
24:17
anyway,
24:17
I'm
24:17
much
24:17
more
24:18
peace
24:18
with
24:18
it.
24:19
Like,
24:19
I'm.
24:20
This
24:20
is
24:20
vast,
24:21
unknowable
24:22
mystery,
24:23
and
24:24
that's
24:24
okay.
24:24
And
24:24
maybe
24:25
we're
24:25
getting
24:25
closer
24:26
to
24:26
truth,
24:26
but
24:27
the
24:27
unknowability
24:28
of
24:28
it
24:28
is
24:28
no
24:29
longer
24:29
freaking
24:29
me
24:29
out
24:30
so
24:30
much.
24:30
It's
24:31
kind
24:31
of
24:31
being
24:31
okay.
24:32
But
24:32
I
24:33
want
24:33
you
24:33
to
24:33
know
24:33
your.
24:33
Your
24:34
work.
24:34
And
24:34
you're
24:34
asking.
24:35
Putting
24:35
that
24:35
question
24:35
out
24:36
there
24:36
in
24:36
a
24:36
major
24:36
way
24:37
has
24:37
really
24:37
deeply
24:38
impacted
24:38
my
24:38
thinking.
24:39
Well,
24:40
let
24:40
me
24:40
tell
24:40
you
24:40
a
24:40
story
24:41
how
24:41
it
24:41
affected
24:41
me.
24:43
So
24:43
the
24:43
story
24:43
begins
24:44
when
24:44
I'm
24:45
12
24:45
years
24:45
old
24:45
and
24:46
I'm
24:46
at
24:46
sleepaway
24:47
camp.
24:48
And
24:49
I
24:49
remember
24:51
being
24:51
so
24:52
scared
24:52
of
24:53
something
24:54
that
24:54
I
24:54
put
24:55
it
24:55
out
24:55
of
24:55
my
24:55
mind
24:56
because
24:57
I
24:57
was
24:57
more
24:57
frightened
24:58
than
24:58
I'd
24:58
ever
24:58
been
24:58
in
24:59
my
24:59
life.
25:00
And
25:00
for
25:01
decades,
25:02
I
25:02
could
25:02
not
25:02
remember
25:03
what
25:03
that
25:03
was.
25:04
I
25:04
tried
25:05
and
25:05
I
25:05
couldn't.
25:05
And
25:05
then
25:06
suddenly
25:06
I
25:06
don't
25:07
remember
25:07
when.
25:07
Maybe
25:08
when
25:08
I
25:08
was
25:08
50
25:08
years
25:09
old
25:09
or
25:09
60
25:09
or
25:10
it
25:10
was
25:11
later,
25:12
I
25:12
remembered
25:12
that
25:13
that
25:13
was
25:13
the
25:14
sudden
25:14
thought
25:14
that,
25:15
why
25:16
isn't
25:16
there
25:16
nothing?
25:18
Because
25:18
nothing
25:19
seems
25:20
simpler
25:20
than
25:21
all
25:21
this
25:21
something.
25:22
And
25:23
so
25:23
how
25:23
did
25:24
that
25:24
happen.
25:24
And
25:24
nothing
25:25
is
25:25
very
25:26
inclusive
25:27
because
25:28
nothing
25:28
includes
25:29
God,
25:30
if
25:30
there
25:30
is
25:30
a
25:30
God,
25:30
or
25:31
cosmic
25:32
consciousness,
25:32
if
25:33
there
25:33
is
25:33
cosmic.
25:35
It
25:35
subsumes
25:36
everything.
25:37
I
25:37
wrote
25:37
a
25:37
short
25:37
paper
25:38
called
25:38
Levels
25:38
of
25:38
Nothing
25:39
where
25:39
I
25:39
talk
25:39
about
25:40
nine
25:40
levels
25:40
of
25:41
nothing.
25:42
It's
25:42
a
25:42
very
25:42
short
25:42
paper.
25:43
Look
25:43
it
25:43
up
25:44
in
25:44
the
25:44
web.
25:44
Levels
25:45
of
25:45
nothing.
25:46
And
25:46
of
25:46
the
25:46
nine
25:47
levels,
25:47
the
25:48
nothing
25:48
of
25:49
scientists,
25:49
of
25:49
quantum
25:50
physicists
25:50
is
25:51
level
25:51
five.
25:52
So
25:52
when
25:53
physicists
25:53
say
25:54
something
25:54
can
25:54
come
25:55
from
25:55
nothing
25:56
through
25:56
quantum
25:57
tunneling
25:58
or
25:58
quantum
25:58
foam
25:59
or
25:59
Heisenberg
26:00
uncertainty,
26:01
whatever
26:01
is
26:01
the
26:02
mechanism
26:02
that
26:02
quantum
26:03
mechanics
26:03
yields
26:04
something
26:04
from
26:05
nothing,
26:05
that's
26:06
level
26:06
five
26:07
and
26:07
nothing
26:07
below
26:08
that.
26:08
There
26:08
are
26:08
four
26:09
other
26:09
levels
26:09
of
26:10
nothing
26:10
which
26:10
they
26:10
don't
26:11
even
26:11
understand.
26:12
And
26:12
so
26:13
that
26:13
is
26:13
very
26:13
definitely
26:14
a
26:14
critical
26:15
question.
26:16
It's
26:16
not
26:16
the
26:17
same
26:17
question.
26:18
It's
26:18
a
26:18
much
26:19
deeper
26:19
question
26:20
than
26:20
what
26:20
is
26:21
consciousness?
26:21
But
26:22
to
26:22
my
26:22
mind,
26:22
those
26:23
two
26:23
questions,
26:24
the
26:24
questions
26:24
why
26:25
is
26:25
there
26:25
something
26:25
rather
26:25
than
26:26
nothing?
26:26
And
26:27
the
26:27
deep
26:27
nature
26:28
of
26:29
phenomenal
26:29
consciousness.
26:30
We're
26:30
talking
26:30
about
26:30
consciousness.
26:31
There
26:31
are
26:31
many
26:31
different
26:31
kinds
26:32
of
26:32
consciousness.
26:32
We're
26:33
using
26:33
consciousness
26:34
as
26:34
a
26:35
exemplar
26:35
for
26:36
what's
26:36
called
26:36
phenomenal
26:37
consciousness,
26:38
which
26:38
means
26:38
what
26:38
it's
26:38
like
26:39
our
26:39
internal
26:40
movie
26:40
as
26:40
we
26:41
see
26:42
the,
26:42
you
26:42
know,
26:42
the
26:43
smell
26:43
of
26:43
garlic
26:44
cooking
26:44
in
26:44
oil,
26:45
or
26:45
Mahler's
26:47
Second
26:47
Symphony,
26:48
the
26:48
last
26:48
movement,
26:49
or
26:49
seeing
26:49
your
26:49
newborn
26:50
daughter
26:51
and
26:51
just
26:51
born,
26:52
whatever
26:52
that
26:52
experience
26:53
is,
26:54
that's
26:54
what
26:54
phenomenal
26:55
consciousness.
26:56
So
26:56
those
26:56
are
26:57
the
26:57
two
26:57
big
26:57
questions.
26:58
I
26:58
can
26:58
talk
26:59
about
26:59
my
26:59
own
26:59
view
27:00
because
27:00
this.
27:00
This
27:01
is
27:01
kind
27:01
of
27:01
a
27:02
funny
27:02
story
27:02
that
27:03
I
27:03
like
27:03
to
27:03
tell.
27:04
So
27:05
when
27:05
I
27:05
wrote
27:05
the
27:05
paper
27:06
and
27:06
it
27:06
was
27:06
the
27:06
first
27:06
version,
27:07
I
27:08
sent
27:08
it
27:08
to
27:08
some
27:08
friends
27:08
and
27:09
people,
27:09
and
27:10
people
27:11
said,
27:11
you
27:11
know,
27:11
it
27:12
looks
27:12
great,
27:12
but
27:13
I
27:13
looked
27:13
for
27:13
your
27:13
view,
27:14
I
27:14
couldn't
27:14
find
27:14
it.
27:14
And
27:14
I
27:15
said,
27:15
the
27:15
reason
27:15
you
27:15
couldn't
27:15
find
27:16
it,
27:16
I
27:16
didn't
27:16
put
27:17
it
27:17
there.
27:18
And
27:18
they
27:18
said,
27:18
well,
27:19
why
27:19
not?
27:19
I
27:20
said,
27:20
well,
27:21
first
27:21
of
27:21
all,
27:21
I
27:21
said,
27:22
there
27:22
are
27:22
two
27:22
reasons.
27:23
First
27:23
reason
27:23
I
27:24
didn't
27:24
put
27:24
my
27:24
own
27:24
thinking
27:25
there
27:25
is
27:26
that
27:26
it
27:26
doesn't
27:27
matter
27:27
what
27:28
I
27:28
think.
27:29
What
27:29
I
27:30
think
27:30
is
27:30
the
27:30
same
27:30
as
27:30
what
27:30
everybody
27:31
think.
27:31
I
27:31
put
27:31
the
27:32
value
27:32
of
27:32
my
27:33
conclusion
27:34
at
27:34
the
27:34
same
27:35
level
27:35
of
27:35
anybody
27:36
else's
27:36
conclusion.
27:37
I
27:37
put
27:37
no
27:38
extra
27:38
weight
27:38
on
27:39
my
27:39
own
27:39
thinking,
27:40
even
27:40
though
27:40
I
27:40
do
27:40
have
27:41
some
27:41
thinking.
27:42
That's
27:42
the
27:42
first
27:43
reason.
27:43
Second
27:43
reason
27:44
is
27:44
that
27:44
if
27:45
I
27:45
put
27:45
my
27:45
view
27:45
in
27:46
there,
27:46
then
27:46
everybody's
27:47
going
27:47
to
27:47
think
27:47
that
27:47
the
27:47
paper
27:48
is
27:48
skewed
27:48
for
27:49
that,
27:49
and
27:49
how
27:49
I
27:49
present
27:50
other
27:50
theories
27:51
is
27:51
going
27:51
to
27:52
be
27:52
skewed
27:53
by
27:53
how
27:53
I
27:53
view
27:54
my
27:54
own
27:54
theory.
27:54
And
27:55
I
27:55
said,
27:55
that's
27:56
really
27:56
not
27:56
true.
27:57
Because
27:57
when
27:57
I.
27:57
And
27:58
as
27:58
I
27:58
mentioned
27:58
before,
27:59
when
27:59
I
27:59
wrote
28:00
this
28:00
I
28:00
inhabited
28:01
each
28:01
theory.
28:02
I
28:02
mean,
28:02
each
28:02
theory.
28:03
When
28:03
I
28:03
wrote,
28:03
I
28:04
pretended
28:05
and
28:05
I
28:05
fooled
28:05
myself.
28:06
I
28:07
hypnotized
28:07
myself
28:07
into
28:08
thinking
28:08
this
28:08
is
28:08
my
28:09
theory
28:09
and
28:09
I'm
28:09
going
28:09
to
28:09
try
28:10
my
28:10
best
28:10
to
28:10
explain
28:11
it.
28:11
Because
28:11
this
28:11
is
28:11
the
28:12
truth
28:12
and
28:12
the
28:12
world
28:12
needs
28:13
to
28:13
know
28:13
it.
28:13
So
28:13
that's
28:14
the
28:14
mentality
28:14
I
28:14
had
28:15
on
28:15
each
28:15
theory.
28:16
And
28:16
I
28:16
didn't
28:16
want
28:16
to
28:17
undermine
28:17
that
28:17
by
28:18
saying,
28:18
and
28:18
by
28:18
the
28:18
way,
28:18
here's
28:19
what
28:19
I
28:19
think.
28:20
So
28:20
then
28:21
somebody
28:21
else
28:21
said,
28:22
okay,
28:23
we
28:23
understand
28:23
that
28:24
most
28:24
people
28:25
understood
28:25
it
28:25
on
28:25
the
28:26
surface.
28:26
Then
28:26
somebody
28:26
said,
28:27
you
28:27
know
28:27
something?
28:28
If
28:28
when
28:28
you
28:28
say
28:29
that
28:29
we
28:29
think
28:30
you
28:30
have
28:30
a
28:30
hidden
28:30
agenda,
28:32
so
28:32
you're
28:32
not
28:32
telling
28:33
us,
28:33
but
28:33
you're
28:33
really
28:34
skewing
28:35
things
28:35
so
28:35
that
28:35
people
28:35
will
28:36
come.
28:36
So
28:36
it's
28:36
really
28:36
a
28:37
very
28:37
sneaky
28:38
way
28:39
to
28:39
approach
28:39
the
28:40
subject.
28:41
So
28:41
now
28:41
I
28:41
was
28:41
caught
28:42
on
28:42
both
28:42
sides.
28:42
If
28:42
I
28:43
say
28:43
what
28:44
I
28:44
think,
28:44
it's
28:45
going
28:45
to
28:45
skew
28:45
in
28:45
one
28:45
way,
28:46
but
28:46
don't
28:46
think
28:47
people
28:47
are
28:47
going
28:47
to
28:47
think
28:47
I
28:47
have
28:48
a
28:48
hidden
28:48
agenda.
28:48
And
28:49
sneakily,
28:50
because
28:50
everybody
28:50
has
28:51
to
28:51
have
28:51
your
28:51
own
28:51
theory.
28:52
I
28:52
mean,
28:52
you
28:52
know,
28:53
we're
28:53
not
28:53
robotic
28:54
in
28:54
that
28:55
sense,
28:55
but
28:55
everybody
28:56
has
28:56
a
28:56
theory
28:57
whether
28:57
they
28:57
put
28:57
it
28:57
or
28:58
not.
28:58
So
28:58
I
28:58
was
28:58
then
28:58
caught
28:59
between
28:59
the
28:59
horns
28:59
of
29:00
this
29:01
dilemma.
29:01
And
29:02
so
29:02
what
29:02
I
29:02
decided
29:03
to
29:03
do
29:03
was
29:04
in
29:04
the
29:04
paper
29:05
put
29:05
a
29:06
very
29:06
short
29:06
statement
29:07
of
29:07
what
29:07
I
29:07
think.
29:09
And
29:09
this
29:09
is
29:09
the
29:09
way
29:09
I
29:10
describe
29:10
it.
29:11
The
29:11
paper
29:11
is
29:11
175,000
29:13
words.
29:15
In
29:15
explaining
29:16
what
29:16
I
29:16
think,
29:17
I
29:18
use
29:18
39
29:19
words
29:20
and
29:20
then
29:20
a
29:20
footnote
29:21
of
29:21
32
29:22
words.
29:22
So
29:23
it's
29:23
a
29:23
total
29:23
of
29:23
71
29:24
words
29:25
on
29:25
what
29:25
I
29:25
think
29:26
out
29:26
of
29:26
a
29:27
total
29:27
of
29:27
175,000
29:28
words.
29:29
And
29:30
I
29:30
introduce
29:30
what
29:31
I
29:31
think
29:31
by
29:31
saying
29:33
basically
29:33
what
29:33
I
29:33
said.
29:34
Now
29:34
I
29:35
thought
29:35
I
29:35
shouldn't
29:35
do
29:35
it,
29:36
but
29:36
people
29:36
think
29:36
I'll
29:37
have
29:37
a
29:37
hidden
29:37
agenda
29:37
if
29:38
I
29:38
don't.
29:38
So
29:39
for
29:39
what
29:39
little
29:39
it's
29:40
worth,
29:40
and
29:41
because
29:41
everybody
29:41
is
29:42
pressuring
29:42
me,
29:42
here's
29:43
what
29:43
I
29:43
think.
29:44
And
29:44
what
29:44
I
29:45
think
29:45
is
29:45
a
29:45
non
29:46
material
29:46
kind
29:47
of
29:48
mashup
29:48
between
29:48
dualism
29:49
and
29:49
idealism
29:50
in
29:50
some
29:50
sense.
29:51
And
29:51
then
29:51
I
29:51
put
29:51
a
29:51
footnote
29:52
saying
29:52
that's
29:53
not
29:53
right.
29:53
My
29:54
second
29:54
category
29:54
is
29:54
something
29:55
having
29:55
to
29:55
do
29:55
with
29:55
quantum,
29:56
which
29:56
surprised
29:56
me
29:57
because
29:57
I
29:57
was
29:57
always
29:57
very
29:57
negative
29:58
on
29:59
quantum
29:59
consciousness.
30:00
But
30:00
having
30:00
explored
30:01
it
30:01
through
30:01
the
30:02
various
30:02
different
30:03
quantum
30:03
expressions,
30:04
even
30:04
though
30:04
a
30:04
lot
30:04
of
30:04
people
30:05
disagree
30:05
with
30:06
that,
30:06
I
30:06
think
30:06
that's
30:07
a
30:07
possibility.
30:08
And
30:08
then
30:08
counterintuitively,
30:10
consciousness
30:11
eliminativism
30:12
with
30:12
a
30:13
representation.
30:13
So
30:14
I
30:14
had
30:14
again,
30:15
32
30:16
words
30:16
in
30:16
the
30:16
text,
30:17
or
30:17
39
30:18
words
30:18
in
30:18
the
30:18
text,
30:19
32
30:19
in
30:19
a
30:20
footnote,
30:20
71
30:21
words
30:21
out
30:21
of
30:21
175,000.
30:23
And
30:23
that's
30:23
what
30:23
it's
30:24
worth.
30:25
All
30:25
right,
30:27
Robert,
30:27
you
30:28
mentioned
30:29
there's
30:29
a
30:29
unique
30:30
feature
30:30
about
30:31
theories
30:31
of
30:31
consciousness
30:32
and
30:32
that
30:32
is
30:33
contrary
30:33
to
30:33
the
30:34
way
30:34
science
30:34
usually
30:35
progresses.
30:35
And
30:36
science
30:37
isn't
30:37
quite
30:37
the
30:37
right
30:38
term
30:38
here,
30:38
but
30:39
contrary
30:39
to
30:39
the
30:39
way
30:39
knowledge
30:40
usually
30:40
progresses,
30:41
where
30:42
the
30:42
more
30:42
information
30:42
one
30:43
gets,
30:43
the
30:43
more
30:43
it
30:43
refines
30:44
and
30:44
narrows
30:45
one's
30:46
range
30:46
of
30:46
theories.
30:47
There's
30:47
an
30:48
explosion
30:48
of
30:48
theories
30:49
here.
30:49
What
30:50
do
30:50
you
30:50
make
30:50
of
30:50
that?
30:51
I
30:51
think
30:51
it's
30:51
a
30:52
deep
30:52
probe
30:53
of
30:53
the
30:53
nature
30:53
of
30:54
consciousness.
30:54
I
30:55
think
30:55
it
30:55
says
30:55
something
30:55
about
30:56
consciousness
30:57
that
30:58
is
30:58
different
30:59
than
30:59
other
31:00
aspects
31:00
of
31:00
science.
31:01
And
31:01
I
31:01
agree
31:02
with
31:02
your
31:03
questioning
31:03
the
31:03
word
31:03
science
31:04
because
31:04
that
31:05
has
31:05
a
31:06
particular
31:07
structure,
31:07
the
31:08
scientific
31:08
method,
31:09
which
31:09
deals
31:10
with
31:10
experimentation
31:11
or
31:11
observation,
31:12
replication,
31:13
prediction.
31:14
It's
31:14
a
31:15
very
31:15
specific
31:16
process.
31:16
And
31:17
it
31:17
may
31:17
be
31:17
the
31:18
case
31:18
that
31:18
there
31:18
are
31:18
aspects
31:19
of
31:19
knowledge
31:20
that
31:21
are
31:21
not
31:21
amenable
31:22
to
31:23
that
31:23
approach.
31:24
But
31:24
that
31:24
doesn't
31:25
mean
31:25
that
31:25
doesn't
31:26
give
31:26
you
31:26
license
31:27
to
31:27
be
31:27
irrational
31:28
or
31:28
illogical.
31:29
And
31:30
so
31:30
there
31:31
are
31:31
things
31:31
beyond
31:32
this.
31:32
And
31:32
I
31:33
say
31:33
in
31:33
the
31:33
paper
31:34
that
31:34
I'm
31:35
going
31:35
to
31:35
explore
31:37
theories
31:38
of
31:38
consciousness
31:38
that
31:39
are
31:39
not
31:40
subject
31:40
to
31:40
the
31:40
scientific
31:41
method.
31:42
And
31:43
that
31:44
to
31:44
many
31:44
people
31:45
is
31:45
an
31:45
immediate
31:46
disqualification.
31:48
And
31:48
I
31:48
say
31:48
that
31:49
that
31:50
for
31:50
the
31:50
nature
31:50
of
31:50
consciousness
31:51
is
31:51
not
31:51
a
31:52
disqualification.
31:53
It's
31:53
essential
31:54
to
31:54
include.
31:55
I
31:55
can
31:55
tell
31:55
you
31:55
a
31:55
short
31:56
story
31:56
about.
31:56
And
31:57
I
31:57
give
31:57
credit
31:57
to
31:57
the
31:58
Journal
31:58
of
31:59
Progress
31:59
in
31:59
Biophysics
32:00
Molecular
32:00
Biology
32:01
because
32:01
when
32:01
the
32:01
first
32:02
reviewer
32:03
went
32:03
through
32:03
the
32:03
article,
32:04
it
32:04
was
32:04
very
32:05
positive
32:05
about
32:05
all
32:05
the
32:06
scientific
32:06
theories.
32:06
He's
32:07
made
32:07
some
32:07
excellent
32:08
suggestions
32:09
in
32:09
particular
32:09
one
32:10
I
32:10
had
32:10
left
32:10
out
32:11
and
32:11
then
32:11
one
32:12
I
32:12
had
32:12
rejected
32:13
because
32:13
I
32:13
didn't
32:13
think
32:14
it
32:14
was
32:14
relevant.
32:14
He
32:14
thought
32:15
it
32:15
was.
32:15
So
32:15
then
32:15
I
32:16
included
32:16
that
32:16
it
32:16
was
32:16
very
32:17
helpful.
32:17
But
32:18
he
32:18
said
32:18
that
32:20
you
32:21
deal
32:21
with
32:21
a
32:21
lot
32:21
of
32:22
philosophical,
32:22
deep
32:23
philosophical
32:23
ideas
32:24
and
32:24
theological
32:25
ideas
32:25
from
32:25
different
32:26
traditions.
32:27
The
32:28
readers
32:28
of
32:29
Progress
32:29
in
32:30
Biophysics
32:30
and
32:30
Molecular
32:31
Biology
32:31
are
32:31
not
32:32
going
32:32
to
32:32
be
32:32
interested
32:33
in
32:33
those
32:34
kinds
32:34
of
32:34
things.
32:34
They'll
32:34
be
32:34
very
32:35
interested
32:35
in
32:35
all
32:35
the
32:36
scientific
32:36
theories.
32:37
And
32:38
so,
32:38
you
32:38
know,
32:39
the
32:39
recommendation
32:39
you
32:39
just
32:40
take
32:40
those
32:40
out.
32:41
And
32:41
I
32:42
said,
32:42
responded
32:43
with
32:43
appreciation
32:44
for
32:44
all
32:44
the
32:44
help
32:45
that
32:45
he
32:45
gave,
32:46
which
32:46
I
32:47
don't
32:47
know
32:47
what's
32:47
a
32:47
he,
32:47
he
32:48
or
32:48
she
32:48
gave.
32:49
And
32:49
I
32:49
really
32:49
do
32:50
and
32:50
credit
32:51
the
32:51
person
32:51
in
32:51
the
32:52
article
32:52
for
32:53
helping.
32:53
I
32:53
said,
32:54
if
32:54
I
32:54
were
32:54
in
32:55
your
32:55
case,
32:56
I
32:56
would
32:56
say
32:56
exactly
32:57
the
32:57
same
32:57
thing.
32:58
I'd
32:58
say,
32:58
you
32:59
know,
32:59
you
32:59
should
33:00
take
33:00
those
33:00
out.
33:01
It
33:01
was
33:01
not
33:01
appropriate
33:02
for
33:02
this
33:02
journal.
33:03
I
33:03
said,
33:04
and
33:04
you're
33:04
right
33:04
that
33:05
the
33:05
readers
33:06
of
33:06
this
33:06
journal,
33:06
few
33:07
if
33:07
any,
33:07
are
33:07
going
33:07
to
33:08
be
33:08
interested
33:08
in
33:08
these
33:08
theories.
33:09
The
33:09
problem
33:10
is,
33:11
is
33:11
that
33:11
I
33:12
have
33:12
now
33:12
started
33:12
this
33:13
process
33:14
to
33:14
do
33:15
what
33:15
to
33:15
me
33:15
is
33:16
this
33:16
landscape
33:16
of
33:17
consciousness.
33:17
It's
33:18
consumed
33:19
me
33:19
or
33:19
at
33:20
least
33:20
has
33:20
obsessed
33:21
me,
33:21
if
33:21
not,
33:21
not
33:22
consumed
33:22
me
33:22
because
33:22
I've
33:23
done
33:23
other
33:23
things,
33:23
but
33:23
it's
33:24
obsessed
33:24
me
33:24
for
33:25
my
33:25
entire
33:25
life.
33:26
And
33:26
now
33:27
I'm
33:27
in
33:27
the
33:27
process
33:27
of
33:28
doing
33:28
this
33:28
and
33:28
I'm
33:28
not
33:28
going
33:29
to
33:29
do
33:29
it
33:29
a
33:29
second
33:29
time.
33:30
I'm
33:30
only
33:30
doing
33:30
it
33:31
this
33:31
once
33:32
and
33:32
I
33:32
have
33:32
to
33:33
do
33:33
it
33:33
the
33:33
way
33:33
I
33:33
think
33:34
I
33:34
need
33:34
to
33:34
do
33:34
it.
33:35
And
33:35
if
33:36
it
33:36
doesn't
33:36
fit
33:36
the
33:37
journal,
33:37
I
33:37
feel
33:37
terrible.
33:38
But
33:38
I
33:38
understand.
33:39
If
33:40
I
33:40
were
33:40
you,
33:40
I'd
33:40
reject
33:41
it
33:41
for
33:41
that
33:41
reason,
33:42
honestly
33:42
I
33:42
would.
33:43
But
33:43
I
33:44
can't
33:44
take
33:44
that
33:45
out
33:45
because
33:45
I'm
33:46
only
33:46
doing
33:46
this
33:46
once
33:46
and
33:47
it's
33:47
going
33:47
to
33:47
be
33:47
done
33:47
my
33:48
way.
33:49
And
33:49
I
33:49
will
33:50
find
33:50
another
33:51
venue
33:51
or
33:51
I'll
33:52
self
33:52
publish
33:52
it
33:53
or
33:53
whatever
33:53
I
33:53
have
33:53
to
33:54
do,
33:54
but
33:54
I'm
33:55
going
33:55
to
33:55
do
33:55
it
33:55
once
33:55
we
33:55
do
33:56
it
33:56
my
33:56
way.
33:56
And
33:57
you
33:57
know,
33:57
to
33:57
their
33:57
credit,
33:58
they
33:58
agreed
33:59
and
33:59
published
34:00
the
34:00
entire
34:01
thing
34:01
in
34:01
its
34:01
entirety
34:02
without
34:02
any
34:03
cuts.
34:03
And
34:04
so
34:04
I
34:05
appreciate
34:05
the
34:06
journal
34:06
for
34:06
having
34:07
that
34:07
flexibility
34:08
in
34:09
thinking.
34:09
And
34:09
part
34:09
of
34:09
it
34:10
I
34:10
should
34:10
credit
34:10
is
34:11
Dennis
34:11
Noble,
34:12
who
34:12
is
34:13
a
34:13
great
34:13
biologist
34:14
and
34:14
visionary
34:15
thinker
34:15
who
34:16
has
34:16
been,
34:16
shall
34:17
we
34:17
say,
34:17
iconoclastic
34:18
in
34:18
some
34:18
of
34:18
his
34:19
views
34:19
in
34:19
the
34:19
biological
34:20
sphere
34:21
and
34:21
has
34:21
encouraged
34:22
a
34:23
more
34:23
expansive
34:24
approach
34:24
to
34:25
the
34:25
nature
34:25
of
34:25
science,
34:26
the
34:26
nature
34:26
of
34:26
knowledge.
34:27
So
34:27
he
34:27
invested
34:28
in
34:28
this
34:29
journal
34:29
that
34:30
way
34:30
of
34:30
thinking.
34:31
And
34:31
I
34:31
think
34:31
that
34:32
also
34:32
led
34:32
to
34:33
its
34:33
publishing
34:34
all
34:34
the
34:34
material.
34:35
And
34:36
so
34:36
far
34:36
we've
34:36
been
34:36
talking
34:37
at
34:37
a
34:37
kind
34:37
of
34:37
meta
34:38
level
34:38
about
34:38
the
34:39
process
34:39
of
34:40
writing
34:40
and
34:41
the
34:41
intentions
34:42
and
34:43
some
34:43
of
34:43
the
34:43
assumptions
34:44
underlying.
34:44
So
34:45
maybe
34:45
we
34:46
could
34:46
get
34:46
down
34:46
to
34:46
some
34:46
of
34:47
the
34:47
actual
34:47
theories.
34:47
And
34:48
I
34:48
think
34:48
it'd
34:48
be
34:48
very
34:49
interesting
34:49
and
34:49
useful
34:50
for.
34:50
For
34:50
our
34:50
listeners
34:51
to
34:51
know
34:52
what
34:53
major
34:53
groups
34:53
of
34:54
theories
34:54
you
34:55
came
34:55
up
34:55
with.
34:56
And
34:56
we
34:56
may
34:56
need
34:57
to
34:57
define
34:57
some
34:57
of
34:57
the
34:58
terms,
34:58
but
34:59
maybe
34:59
you
34:59
could
34:59
just.
35:00
Sure.
35:01
And
35:01
that's
35:01
important.
35:01
And
35:02
the
35:02
first.
35:02
Can
35:02
I
35:02
make
35:03
a
35:03
comment
35:03
and
35:03
a
35:03
question
35:04
here?
35:04
All
35:05
of
35:05
your
35:05
work
35:05
and
35:05
all
35:05
these
35:06
different
35:06
theories
35:06
and
35:07
philosophers
35:08
and
35:08
scientists
35:09
and
35:09
mystics
35:10
that
35:10
come
35:10
up
35:10
with
35:11
all
35:11
these
35:11
different
35:11
things,
35:12
interesting
35:13
enough
35:13
is
35:13
consciousness
35:14
is
35:15
a
35:15
product
35:15
of
35:15
consciousness
35:16
trying
35:16
to
35:17
understand
35:17
its
35:17
own
35:18
nature.
35:19
And
35:19
what
35:19
does
35:20
that
35:20
tell
35:20
us
35:20
about
35:22
this
35:23
mystery
35:24
of
35:24
consciousness?
35:24
That's
35:25
a
35:25
legitimate
35:25
question.
35:26
People
35:26
bring
35:26
it
35:26
up
35:27
and
35:27
people
35:27
use
35:28
that
35:28
same
35:28
theory
35:29
in
35:29
terms
35:29
of
35:30
understanding
35:30
the
35:30
universe.
35:31
How
35:31
can
35:31
we
35:32
understand
35:32
the
35:33
creation
35:33
of
35:33
the
35:33
universe
35:34
or
35:34
the
35:34
existence
35:35
of
35:35
the
35:35
universe?
35:35
Because
35:35
we
35:36
are
35:36
in
35:36
the
35:36
universe.
35:37
So
35:37
it
35:38
presents
35:38
sort
35:38
of
35:39
a
35:39
self
35:39
referential
35:40
paradox
35:41
in
35:41
terms
35:42
of
35:42
understanding
35:42
the
35:42
universe
35:43
is
35:43
one
35:43
kind
35:43
of
35:44
the
35:44
other
35:44
is
35:44
in
35:45
consciousness.
35:46
I
35:46
emotionally
35:47
disagree
35:48
with
35:48
those
35:48
criticisms.
35:50
I
35:50
think
35:50
the
35:51
capability
35:51
of
35:52
human
35:52
mentality
35:53
is
35:53
capable
35:54
of
35:55
understanding
35:56
these
35:56
things.
35:57
There
35:57
are
35:57
A
35:58
number
35:58
of
35:58
very
35:59
prominent
35:59
people
36:00
who
36:01
disagree
36:01
with
36:01
what
36:02
I
36:02
just
36:02
said,
36:02
who
36:02
said
36:03
this
36:03
human
36:03
brain
36:03
is
36:04
incapable
36:04
for
36:05
one
36:05
reason
36:05
or
36:05
another
36:06
evolutionary.
36:07
We
36:08
were,
36:08
you
36:08
know,
36:09
our
36:09
brains
36:09
were
36:09
designed
36:10
to,
36:10
you
36:10
know,
36:11
escape
36:11
tigers
36:12
on
36:12
the
36:12
plain
36:12
of
36:13
Africa.
36:13
So
36:14
why
36:14
should
36:14
that
36:14
have
36:15
anything
36:15
to
36:15
do
36:15
with
36:15
a
36:15
veridical
36:16
understanding
36:17
of
36:17
the
36:17
nature
36:17
of
36:17
reality?
36:19
And
36:19
you
36:19
know,
36:19
why
36:19
should
36:20
that
36:20
have
36:20
anything
36:20
to
36:20
do
36:20
with
36:21
understanding
36:21
mathematics
36:22
or
36:22
quantum
36:22
physics
36:23
or
36:23
anything
36:23
else?
36:23
So
36:24
I
36:24
believe
36:24
that
36:25
we
36:25
can
36:27
understand
36:27
a
36:28
lot
36:28
and
36:28
we're
36:28
not
36:29
limited
36:30
by
36:30
the
36:30
self
36:30
referential
36:31
paradox.
36:32
I
36:32
could
36:32
be
36:32
wrong
36:33
on
36:33
that,
36:33
but
36:33
that's
36:33
my
36:34
feeling.
36:34
And
36:34
so
36:35
I
36:35
go
36:36
into
36:36
this
36:37
not
36:37
thinking
36:37
I'm
36:37
going
36:37
to
36:38
solve
36:38
the
36:38
problem
36:38
and
36:39
not
36:39
thinking
36:39
I'm
36:39
going
36:39
to.
36:40
But
36:40
I
36:40
do
36:40
think
36:41
that
36:41
I
36:41
can
36:41
encompass
36:42
the
36:42
problem
36:43
sufficiently
36:44
that
36:45
my
36:45
approach
36:45
is
36:46
not
36:46
limited
36:46
to
36:47
the
36:47
fact
36:47
that
36:47
I
36:47
have
36:48
a
36:48
physical
36:48
brain
36:48
that
36:49
was
36:49
developed
36:49
through
36:49
an
36:50
evolutionary
36:50
process.
36:51
Because
36:51
of
36:51
the
36:52
evidence
36:52
we
36:52
have
36:52
that
36:53
we
36:53
really
36:53
understand
36:53
how
36:54
the
36:54
universe
36:55
works,
36:55
et
36:55
cetera.
36:55
And
36:56
we
36:56
have
36:56
a.
36:56
We
36:57
have
36:57
this
36:57
sense
36:58
of
36:58
what
36:58
consciousness
36:59
is.
36:59
Again,
37:00
I'm
37:00
there
37:01
are,
37:01
you
37:02
know,
37:02
I
37:02
have
37:02
friends
37:03
and
37:03
very
37:03
sophisticated
37:04
people
37:04
who
37:04
don't
37:05
believe
37:05
that.
37:05
And
37:05
I
37:06
express
37:06
that
37:06
view
37:06
in
37:07
the
37:07
paper.
37:08
So
37:08
that's
37:09
a
37:09
good
37:09
segue
37:09
to
37:10
get
37:10
back
37:10
to
37:10
what
37:10
Roger
37:10
said
37:11
and
37:11
what
37:11
is
37:11
the
37:11
organization
37:12
of
37:12
the
37:13
nature
37:13
of
37:14
consciousness.
37:14
So
37:15
when
37:15
I
37:15
started,
37:16
I
37:16
began
37:17
with
37:17
an
37:17
array
37:18
of
37:18
all
37:18
these
37:18
different
37:18
theories
37:19
just
37:20
there
37:20
on
37:20
a
37:21
spreadsheet
37:22
or
37:22
papers
37:23
and
37:23
began
37:23
to
37:23
feel.
37:24
And
37:24
then
37:25
I
37:25
said
37:25
I
37:25
need
37:25
to
37:26
structure
37:26
this
37:26
in
37:27
some
37:27
way
37:27
so
37:27
it's
37:28
not
37:28
just
37:28
one
37:29
theory
37:29
after
37:29
the
37:29
other
37:30
without
37:30
any
37:30
rationale.
37:31
Because
37:31
that
37:31
will
37:31
be
37:32
a
37:32
help.
37:32
Because
37:33
what
37:33
I
37:33
can
37:33
do
37:34
in
37:34
this
37:35
paper
37:35
is,
37:35
number
37:36
one
37:36
is
37:37
I
37:37
can
37:38
collect
37:39
all
37:39
the
37:39
theories
37:40
that
37:40
I
37:40
think
37:40
pass
37:41
certain
37:41
level
37:41
of
37:42
rationality.
37:42
That
37:43
doesn't
37:43
mean
37:43
I'm
37:44
ultimate
37:44
judge
37:45
of
37:45
things
37:45
is
37:45
my
37:46
judgment.
37:46
People
37:47
can
37:47
have
37:47
another
37:47
judgment.
37:48
People,
37:48
people
37:48
did.
37:49
They
37:49
wrote
37:49
to
37:49
me
37:49
and
37:49
they
37:50
criticized
37:50
me
37:50
for
37:51
leaving
37:51
something
37:51
out.
37:51
And
37:52
in
37:52
general
37:53
I,
37:53
you
37:53
know,
37:53
when
37:54
the
37:54
energy
37:54
and
37:55
the
37:55
attack
37:55
of
37:56
me
37:56
was
37:56
so
37:56
strong
37:57
that
37:57
I
37:57
left
37:57
it
37:57
out,
37:58
I
37:58
put
37:58
it
37:58
in
37:59
and
37:59
studied
37:59
it
37:59
and
38:00
spent
38:00
a
38:00
day
38:00
or
38:00
two
38:01
and
38:01
studied
38:01
it
38:01
and
38:02
put
38:02
it
38:02
into
38:02
the
38:02
best
38:02
of
38:03
my
38:03
ability.
38:03
So
38:03
cataloging
38:04
this
38:05
amalgam
38:06
of
38:06
theories
38:06
is
38:07
point
38:07
one.
38:08
Point
38:08
two
38:08
then
38:09
is
38:10
to
38:10
organize
38:11
them
38:11
in
38:12
or
38:12
categorize
38:12
them
38:13
in
38:13
some
38:13
way
38:14
to
38:14
give
38:15
a
38:15
structure
38:16
or
38:16
understanding.
38:17
And
38:18
so
38:18
I'm
38:18
very
38:18
clear
38:19
that
38:20
I'm
38:20
giving
38:20
one.
38:21
But
38:21
that's
38:22
not
38:23
the
38:23
only
38:24
one.
38:24
There
38:24
are
38:25
many,
38:26
you
38:26
know,
38:26
I'd
38:26
be
38:27
willing
38:27
to
38:27
listen
38:28
to
38:28
other
38:28
types
38:29
of
38:29
structure.
38:29
There's
38:29
nothing
38:29
special
38:30
about
38:30
my
38:31
structure
38:31
other
38:31
than
38:31
that's
38:32
what
38:32
Struck
38:32
me
38:33
as
38:33
the
38:33
best
38:33
during
38:34
this
38:34
period
38:34
of
38:35
thinking.
38:35
And
38:36
so
38:37
I
38:37
began
38:37
to
38:38
categorize
38:38
them
38:39
in
38:39
different
38:39
ways.
38:39
And
38:40
you
38:40
know,
38:40
as
38:40
you
38:41
look
38:41
at
38:41
different
38:41
theories,
38:43
some
38:43
of
38:43
them
38:43
can
38:43
be
38:43
placed
38:44
in
38:44
one
38:44
category
38:44
another
38:45
and
38:45
you
38:45
have
38:45
to
38:45
make
38:46
an
38:46
arbitrary
38:46
decision.
38:47
And
38:47
sometimes
38:48
I'll
38:48
put
38:48
a
38:48
note
38:48
there,
38:49
this
38:49
could
38:49
be
38:49
in
38:49
that
38:49
category,
38:50
this
38:50
guy.
38:50
I
38:50
put
38:50
it
38:50
here
38:51
for
38:51
this
38:51
reason.
38:52
So
38:53
as
38:53
I
38:53
began
38:53
to
38:54
look
38:54
at
38:54
this
38:54
amalgam
38:55
of
38:55
theories,
38:55
I
38:56
noticed
38:56
one
38:56
thing.
38:57
That
38:57
of
38:58
the
38:58
Roughly
38:58
call
38:59
it
38:59
200
38:59
round
39:00
number,
39:00
it's
39:00
more,
39:00
but
39:01
call
39:01
it
39:01
roughly
39:01
200
39:02
theories.
39:02
Roughly
39:03
about
39:03
half
39:03
of
39:03
them,
39:04
the
39:04
way
39:04
I
39:04
had
39:05
organized
39:05
it
39:06
were
39:07
purely
39:08
materialistic
39:09
theories
39:10
in
39:10
the
39:11
classical
39:12
materialist,
39:12
physicalist
39:14
camp,
39:15
roughly
39:15
half.
39:17
And
39:17
so
39:18
I
39:18
took
39:19
those
39:19
and
39:19
put
39:19
them
39:20
into
39:20
materialism
39:21
theories.
39:22
But
39:22
because
39:23
there
39:23
were
39:23
a
39:24
hundred
39:24
or
39:24
so
39:25
in
39:25
that
39:25
category,
39:26
I
39:27
needed
39:27
to
39:28
in
39:28
that
39:29
case
39:29
to
39:30
subdivide
39:31
it
39:31
into
39:31
subcategories.
39:32
The
39:33
paper
39:33
then
39:33
or
39:33
the
39:34
list
39:34
of
39:34
categories
39:35
becomes
39:35
asymmetric
39:37
in
39:37
the
39:37
sense
39:38
that
39:38
the
39:38
materialism
39:39
categories
39:40
has
39:40
two
39:40
levels.
39:41
It
39:41
has
39:41
the
39:41
main
39:41
level
39:42
materialism
39:42
categories
39:43
and
39:44
then
39:44
it
39:44
has
39:44
10
39:44
categories
39:45
below
39:45
that
39:46
which
39:46
are
39:46
different
39:47
kinds
39:48
of
39:48
materialist
39:50
theories.
39:50
The
39:50
way
39:50
you
39:51
look
39:51
at
39:51
materialist
39:52
views.
39:53
And
39:53
then
39:54
I
39:54
have
39:55
seven
39:55
other
39:56
categories
39:57
of
39:57
consciousness
39:58
and
39:59
I
39:59
can
39:59
describe
40:00
them
40:00
in
40:00
a
40:00
minute.
40:01
And
40:01
then
40:01
that
40:01
makes
40:02
eight
40:02
altogether.
40:03
And
40:04
then
40:04
I
40:04
have
40:04
two
40:05
other
40:06
categories
40:07
that
40:07
are
40:08
not
40:08
theories
40:09
of
40:09
consciousness
40:10
per
40:10
se.
40:12
The
40:12
seven
40:13
are,
40:14
but
40:14
the
40:14
eight
40:15
are.
40:15
But
40:16
these
40:16
two
40:16
are
40:17
needed.
40:17
The
40:18
first
40:18
one
40:19
deals
40:19
with
40:20
phenomena
40:21
that
40:21
influence
40:22
your
40:23
theory
40:23
of
40:23
consciousness.
40:24
And
40:24
those
40:24
phenomena
40:26
are
40:26
what
40:26
I
40:27
call
40:27
anomalous
40:28
or
40:28
altered
40:29
states.
40:30
And
40:30
that
40:30
involves
40:31
meditation,
40:32
something
40:32
I
40:32
think
40:32
Roger
40:33
knows
40:33
a
40:33
little
40:33
bit
40:34
more
40:34
than
40:34
I
40:34
do
40:34
about
40:35
being
40:36
facetious.
40:36
Knows
40:36
a
40:37
lot
40:37
more.
40:37
It
40:37
involves
40:38
psychedelics,
40:39
it
40:39
involves
40:40
psi
40:40
or
40:41
parapsychological
40:42
phenomena.
40:43
None
40:43
of
40:44
those
40:44
are
40:44
theories
40:45
of
40:45
consciousness
40:46
per
40:46
se.
40:47
But
40:47
each
40:47
of
40:48
them
40:48
influence
40:49
and
40:50
have
40:50
significant
40:51
impact
40:51
on
40:51
what
40:52
a
40:52
theory
40:52
would
40:53
be,
40:53
even
40:54
though
40:54
they
40:54
may
40:54
differ
40:54
among
40:55
each
40:55
other.
40:55
So
40:56
I
40:56
have
40:56
that
40:56
as
40:56
a
40:56
separate
40:57
category.
40:58
And
40:58
there
40:58
are
40:58
many
40:59
subdivisions
41:00
in
41:00
that
41:00
said
41:00
like
41:01
meditation
41:01
or
41:01
psychedelics,
41:02
etc.
41:03
The
41:03
final
41:03
category
41:04
is
41:04
what
41:04
I
41:04
call
41:05
challenge
41:05
theories.
41:06
And
41:06
these
41:06
are
41:07
people
41:07
who
41:07
have
41:07
taken
41:08
consciousness
41:09
very
41:09
seriously
41:11
but
41:11
have
41:12
come
41:12
to
41:13
the
41:13
conclusion
41:14
that
41:15
we
41:15
can
41:16
never
41:16
solve
41:16
the
41:16
problem.
41:17
Something
41:18
some
41:18
say
41:19
similar
41:19
to
41:19
what
41:19
John
41:20
said
41:20
about,
41:20
you
41:21
know,
41:21
the
41:21
self
41:21
rental
41:22
paradox.
41:22
We're
41:22
inside
41:23
of
41:23
it
41:23
so
41:23
trying
41:24
to
41:24
see
41:24
what
41:24
it
41:24
looks
41:25
like
41:25
from
41:25
the
41:25
outside
41:25
and
41:26
that
41:26
that's
41:27
impossible.
41:27
Others
41:28
say
41:28
our
41:28
brain
41:29
just
41:29
didn't
41:29
evolve
41:30
for
41:30
that
41:30
purpose
41:30
and
41:31
we'll
41:31
never
41:31
be
41:31
able
41:31
to
41:32
do
41:32
it.
41:32
And
41:32
others
41:33
have
41:33
more,
41:35
I
41:35
don't
41:35
know.
41:36
A
41:36
very
41:37
honest,
41:38
confused,
41:39
tough
41:40
minded
41:40
point
41:40
of
41:40
view.
41:41
Example
41:41
that
41:41
is
41:42
Raymond
41:42
Tallis,
41:42
who's
41:43
one
41:43
of
41:43
my
41:43
intellectual
41:44
heroes
41:45
is
41:45
in
41:45
the
41:46
uk.
41:47
He
41:47
was
41:47
a
41:47
neurologist,
41:48
a
41:48
very
41:49
well
41:49
known
41:50
gerontology
41:50
neurologist
41:51
who's
41:51
a
41:52
magnificent
41:53
writer.
41:53
He
41:53
writes
41:54
every
41:54
month
41:54
in
41:54
Philosophy
41:55
Today.
41:55
And
41:56
he
41:56
as
41:56
a
41:57
confirmed
41:57
atheist
41:58
is
41:59
very
41:59
anti
42:00
material,
42:01
very
42:01
anti
42:01
materialism.
42:02
He
42:02
coined
42:03
the
42:03
term
42:03
neuromania.
42:04
I've
42:04
been
42:04
thinking
42:05
neuroscience
42:06
can.
42:06
So
42:07
he
42:07
has
42:07
a
42:07
very
42:08
thoughtful,
42:08
but
42:09
he
42:09
has
42:09
no
42:10
answer.
42:10
But
42:10
he
42:11
knows
42:11
that
42:11
any
42:11
of
42:11
the
42:11
answers
42:12
he's
42:12
heard
42:12
doesn't
42:13
work.
42:13
And
42:13
so
42:14
I
42:14
love
42:14
that.
42:14
And
42:14
so
42:15
that
42:15
to
42:15
me
42:15
is
42:16
part
42:16
of
42:16
this
42:16
challenge
42:17
category.
42:18
So
42:18
then
42:18
to
42:19
go
42:19
quickly,
42:19
the
42:19
10
42:20
categories
42:20
I
42:21
have
42:21
are
42:21
materialism
42:22
theories
42:22
which
42:22
has
42:23
roughly
42:23
half
42:23
of
42:24
the
42:24
theories,
42:25
what's
42:25
called
42:25
non
42:26
reductive
42:26
physicalism,
42:28
which
42:28
has
42:29
similar
42:29
properties
42:30
to
42:30
what's
42:30
called
42:30
property
42:31
dualism.
42:32
Not
42:32
the
42:32
same,
42:33
but
42:33
that
42:33
is
42:34
a
42:34
purely
42:34
physical
42:35
theory,
42:35
but
42:36
it's
42:36
not
42:36
a
42:36
materialistic
42:37
theory
42:37
because
42:38
it
42:38
says
42:38
there's
42:39
something
42:39
about
42:40
the
42:40
mind
42:41
that's
42:41
non
42:41
reducible
42:43
and
42:43
there's
42:44
something
42:44
that
42:44
involves
42:45
the
42:45
nature
42:45
of
42:46
strong
42:46
emergence.
42:47
It
42:47
involves
42:48
the
42:48
nature
42:48
of
42:48
top
42:48
down
42:49
causality.
42:49
There
42:50
are
42:50
various
42:50
aspects
42:51
of
42:51
that.
42:52
Some
42:52
of
42:52
the
42:53
non
42:53
reductive
42:53
physicalism
42:54
has
42:55
emerged
42:56
among
42:56
Christian
42:57
philosophers,
42:58
very
42:58
good
42:59
Christian
42:59
philosophers
43:00
who
43:01
believe
43:01
in
43:02
the
43:02
materiality
43:03
of
43:03
the
43:03
mind
43:03
and
43:04
the
43:04
brain,
43:05
but
43:05
believe
43:06
there
43:06
is
43:06
a
43:06
God
43:06
and
43:07
therefore
43:07
there's
43:07
a
43:08
resurrection,
43:09
but
43:09
there's
43:10
no
43:10
permanent
43:12
nature
43:12
of
43:13
consciousness,
43:14
but
43:14
it's
43:15
therefore
43:15
non
43:15
reductive
43:16
in
43:16
some
43:17
sense.
43:17
The
43:18
third
43:18
category
43:19
is
43:19
quantum
43:19
theories.
43:21
Now
43:21
quantum
43:22
theories,
43:22
you
43:23
know,
43:23
can
43:23
be
43:23
a
43:24
materialistic
43:25
theory
43:26
because
43:26
it's
43:26
part
43:26
of
43:27
the
43:27
physical
43:27
world.
43:27
There's
43:28
nothing
43:28
mystical
43:28
about
43:29
quantum
43:29
theories.
43:29
I
43:30
break
43:30
it
43:30
out
43:30
because
43:31
it's
43:31
not
43:31
a
43:31
classical
43:32
materialism
43:33
theories
43:34
which
43:34
works
43:34
at
43:34
the
43:34
neuro,
43:35
you
43:35
know,
43:35
basically
43:35
a
43:36
lot
43:36
of
43:36
the
43:36
neuroscience
43:37
level.
43:37
So
43:38
quantum
43:38
theories
43:38
are
43:39
very
43:39
broad
43:40
in
43:40
that
43:40
it
43:41
goes
43:41
from
43:41
as
43:42
I've
43:42
said
43:42
earlier,
43:42
from
43:43
activities
43:44
that
43:44
are
43:44
going
43:44
on
43:45
at
43:45
literally
43:45
at
43:46
the
43:46
quantum
43:46
level
43:46
in
43:47
the
43:47
microtubules
43:48
which
43:49
Stu
43:49
Hameroff
43:50
and
43:50
Roger
43:50
Penrose
43:51
have
43:51
promoted
43:51
for
43:52
a
43:52
long
43:52
time,
43:52
which
43:53
in
43:53
recent
43:53
years
43:54
has
43:54
gotten
43:55
more
43:55
appreciation
43:56
than
43:56
it
43:56
did
43:56
when
43:56
it
43:56
originated,
43:57
including
43:57
for
43:58
me,
43:58
which
43:58
I
43:59
admitted.
43:59
And
44:00
it
44:00
goes
44:00
in
44:01
all
44:01
different
44:02
directions.
44:02
The
44:03
person
44:03
who
44:03
invited
44:04
me
44:04
to,
44:04
to
44:04
write
44:04
the
44:05
journal
44:05
is
44:05
a,
44:06
is
44:06
a
44:07
physiologist
44:07
at
44:08
ucla,
44:09
very
44:09
well
44:10
known
44:10
in
44:10
his
44:10
field
44:11
who
44:11
has
44:11
a
44:12
theory
44:12
that
44:12
has
44:13
to
44:13
do
44:13
with
44:13
symbiosis
44:14
of
44:15
cellular
44:16
quantum
44:16
theory,
44:17
et
44:17
cetera.
44:17
So
44:17
there's
44:18
a,
44:18
there's,
44:18
his
44:18
name
44:18
is
44:19
John
44:19
Torday.
44:19
So
44:19
there
44:20
are
44:20
a
44:20
lot
44:20
of
44:20
different
44:20
kinds
44:21
of
44:21
quantum
44:21
theories
44:22
in
44:22
that
44:22
group.
44:23
And
44:23
then
44:23
I
44:23
have
44:24
the
44:24
fourth
44:24
category
44:25
is
44:25
integrated
44:25
information
44:26
Theory,
44:27
which
44:27
I
44:27
break
44:27
out
44:28
as
44:28
a
44:29
separate
44:29
theory,
44:29
not
44:30
because
44:30
I
44:30
think
44:31
it
44:31
is
44:32
because,
44:32
you
44:32
know,
44:32
that's
44:32
been
44:32
in
44:33
competition
44:33
lately
44:34
with
44:34
global
44:34
workspace
44:35
Theory
44:35
is
44:35
a
44:35
whole,
44:36
whole
44:37
activity
44:37
about,
44:38
you
44:38
know,
44:38
some
44:39
people
44:39
calling
44:39
integrated
44:40
information
44:40
theory
44:41
pseudoscience
44:41
is
44:42
a
44:42
big
44:42
brouha
44:43
in
44:43
the
44:43
field.
44:43
I'm
44:44
not,
44:44
I
44:44
don't
44:44
deal
44:44
with
44:44
that
44:45
very
44:45
much.
44:46
But
44:46
integrated
44:47
information
44:47
theory
44:48
has
44:48
characteristics
44:49
that
44:50
are
44:50
difficult
44:51
to
44:51
classify
44:52
under
44:52
any
44:52
other
44:53
of
44:53
the
44:53
main
44:53
categories.
44:54
Some
44:54
people
44:54
say
44:55
it's
44:55
a,
44:55
it's
44:55
a
44:55
panpsychism
44:56
category,
44:57
which
44:58
I
44:58
can
44:58
understand
44:58
why
44:59
they
44:59
say
44:59
it.
44:59
But
44:59
the
45:00
people
45:00
who
45:00
are
45:00
the
45:01
integrated
45:02
information
45:02
theory
45:03
leaders,
45:03
Julio
45:04
Tononi,
45:04
Christophe
45:05
Koch,
45:05
they
45:05
say
45:05
it's
45:06
not.
45:06
So
45:06
I'm
45:07
not
45:07
going
45:07
to
45:07
put
45:07
it
45:07
in
45:08
panpsychism
45:09
if
45:09
the
45:09
people
45:09
whose
45:10
theory
45:10
it
45:11
is
45:11
say
45:11
it
45:11
not.
45:12
So
45:12
I
45:13
made
45:13
that
45:13
as
45:13
a
45:13
special
45:14
theory.
45:15
So
45:15
first
45:15
is
45:16
materialism,
45:16
non
45:17
reductive
45:17
physicalism,
45:18
quantum
45:18
theories,
45:19
integrated
45:19
information
45:20
theory,
45:20
and
45:21
then
45:21
the
45:22
main
45:22
isms
45:22
come
45:23
after
45:23
that,
45:23
panpsychism,
45:25
monisms,
45:26
dualisms
45:27
and
45:27
idealisms.
45:28
And
45:29
they're
45:29
self
45:30
explanatory.
45:31
Panpsychism
45:32
is,
45:32
you
45:32
know,
45:32
that
45:32
there's
45:33
something
45:33
in
45:34
every
45:34
part
45:34
of
45:34
reality
45:35
that
45:35
is
45:36
either
45:36
conscious
45:37
or
45:37
protoconscious.
45:38
You
45:38
have
45:38
the
45:38
combination
45:39
problem.
45:39
How
45:39
do
45:40
you
45:40
get
45:40
these
45:40
little
45:40
pieces
45:40
of
45:41
consciousness
45:41
to
45:41
make
45:42
one
45:42
big
45:42
consciousness?
45:42
And
45:43
we
45:43
have,
45:43
we
45:44
know
45:44
that
45:45
monisms
45:46
is,
45:46
is
45:46
a
45:46
broader
45:47
category.
45:47
You
45:48
can
45:48
classify
45:48
many
45:49
panpsychisms
45:50
as
45:50
monisms.
45:51
There
45:51
are
45:51
different
45:51
dual
45:51
aspect
45:52
monisms
45:53
that
45:53
are,
45:53
you
45:53
know,
45:53
this
45:54
one
45:54
underlying
45:55
thing,
45:55
it's
45:55
expressed
45:56
in
45:56
two
45:56
ways.
45:57
And
45:57
then
45:57
of
45:57
course
45:57
classic
45:58
dualisms
45:59
where
45:59
most
45:59
of
45:59
your
45:59
religious
46:00
traditions
46:00
in
46:01
one
46:01
way
46:01
or
46:01
another
46:01
come
46:02
from
46:02
idealisms
46:03
where
46:03
consciousness
46:04
is
46:04
the
46:04
ultimate
46:05
reality
46:05
and
46:05
everything
46:06
else
46:06
is
46:06
derived
46:07
from
46:07
it,
46:07
either
46:08
illusory
46:09
as
46:10
originated
46:10
in
46:10
the
46:11
Indic
46:11
and
46:11
the
46:11
Veda
46:12
scriptures,
46:13
or
46:13
in
46:14
reality,
46:14
but
46:14
nonetheless
46:15
derived
46:16
from
46:16
it.
46:16
And
46:16
then
46:16
as
46:17
I
46:17
said,
46:17
the
46:17
final
46:17
categories
46:18
are
46:19
anomalous
46:19
and
46:19
altered
46:20
states
46:20
which
46:21
reflect
46:22
these
46:22
different
46:23
categories
46:23
of
46:24
meditation,
46:25
psychedelics,
46:26
esp,
46:27
parapsychology,
46:28
near
46:28
death
46:29
experiences,
46:30
or
46:30
out
46:30
of
46:30
the
46:30
body
46:30
experiences,
46:31
all
46:31
of
46:31
these
46:32
reflect
46:32
and
46:33
if
46:33
any
46:33
of
46:33
those
46:34
are,
46:35
are
46:35
real,
46:36
then
46:37
they
46:37
have
46:37
a
46:37
legitimate
46:38
call
46:39
on
46:40
skewing
46:41
what
46:41
the
46:41
nature
46:41
of
46:42
consciousness
46:42
really
46:43
is.
46:44
So
46:44
if
46:44
out
46:44
of
46:44
body
46:45
experiences
46:46
are
46:46
real
46:46
and
46:46
veridical,
46:48
which
46:49
is
46:49
controversial,
46:50
even
46:51
though,
46:51
you
46:51
know,
46:52
when
46:52
I
46:52
present
46:52
an
46:53
open
46:53
minded
46:53
approach
46:54
to
46:54
both
46:54
sides
46:55
attack
46:55
me,
46:57
yes,
46:58
that's
46:58
a
46:58
risk
47:00
as
47:00
being
47:00
too
47:00
skeptical
47:01
or
47:02
too
47:02
credulous.
47:03
But
47:03
my
47:03
point
47:03
is
47:04
neither.
47:04
My
47:04
point
47:05
is
47:05
that
47:05
if
47:05
this
47:06
is
47:06
the
47:06
case
47:06
and
47:07
I'm
47:07
not
47:07
adjudicating
47:08
it,
47:08
that's
47:09
not
47:09
the
47:09
place
47:09
to
47:09
adjudicate.
47:10
Whether
47:11
obes
47:12
out
47:12
of
47:12
the
47:12
body.
47:12
Experiences
47:13
are
47:13
veridical
47:14
or,
47:15
you
47:15
know,
47:15
imaginary,
47:16
not
47:16
adjudicated.
47:17
I'm
47:17
saying,
47:17
if
47:17
it
47:17
were
47:17
the
47:18
case,
47:18
or
47:18
if
47:18
parapsychology
47:19
were
47:19
the
47:20
case,
47:20
what
47:20
would
47:20
be
47:20
the
47:20
implications
47:21
of
47:21
it?
47:21
That's
47:22
all
47:22
I'm
47:22
saying.
47:23
And
47:23
then
47:23
the
47:23
challenge
47:24
theories,
47:24
which
47:25
in
47:25
one
47:25
way
47:25
or
47:25
another
47:26
challenge
47:26
the
47:26
whole
47:27
design.
47:27
And,
47:28
you
47:28
know,
47:28
people
47:28
like,
47:29
as
47:29
I
47:29
said,
47:29
Raymond
47:30
Tallis,
47:30
Colin
47:30
McGinn
47:31
famously
47:32
has
47:32
talked
47:32
about
47:33
the
47:33
unsolvability
47:34
of
47:34
the
47:34
problem.
47:35
He
47:35
has
47:35
additional
47:36
views
47:36
today
47:36
versus
47:37
his
47:37
classical
47:38
views,
47:38
but
47:38
very
47:39
much
47:39
a
47:39
part
47:40
of
47:40
that.
47:40
Paul
47:40
Davies,
47:41
who
47:42
is
47:42
a
47:42
hardcore
47:44
quantum
47:44
physicist
47:45
who
47:45
believes
47:46
that
47:46
consciousness
47:47
is,
47:47
is
47:48
somehow
47:49
fundamental
47:49
in
47:50
the
47:50
universe.
47:50
It's
47:50
not
47:50
an
47:51
accidental
47:51
thing,
47:52
although
47:52
he's
47:52
atheistic
47:53
and
47:53
is
47:54
not
47:54
given
47:54
to,
47:54
you
47:55
know,
47:55
spiritual
47:55
excesses.
47:56
When
47:56
I
47:57
deal
47:57
with
47:57
things
47:57
in
47:57
altered
47:58
states,
47:58
and
47:59
we
47:59
can
47:59
maybe
47:59
talk
47:59
about
48:00
meditation,
48:01
but
48:01
specifically
48:02
psychedelics,
48:03
I
48:04
certainly
48:04
appreciate,
48:05
in
48:06
fact,
48:06
a
48:06
lot
48:06
of
48:06
people
48:06
who
48:07
read
48:07
the
48:07
paper,
48:08
not
48:08
a
48:08
lot,
48:08
but
48:08
a
48:08
few
48:08
people
48:09
read
48:09
the
48:09
paper.
48:09
There's
48:10
a
48:10
great
48:10
paper,
48:10
he
48:10
says,
48:11
but
48:11
the
48:11
fact
48:11
that
48:11
you
48:11
have
48:12
not
48:12
taken
48:12
psychedelics
48:13
yourself,
48:14
they
48:14
say
48:14
you
48:15
should
48:15
take
48:15
psychedelics,
48:16
that
48:16
will
48:16
change
48:16
your
48:17
view.
48:17
And,
48:18
you
48:18
know,
48:18
my
48:19
answer
48:19
is,
48:19
I
48:20
have
48:20
not
48:20
taken
48:20
psychedelics.
48:21
But
48:21
if
48:22
I
48:22
were
48:22
to
48:22
take
48:22
psychedelics
48:23
and
48:23
I'd
48:23
have
48:23
these
48:24
great
48:24
visions
48:25
of
48:25
something,
48:25
I
48:25
wouldn't
48:26
trust
48:26
what
48:26
that
48:27
would
48:27
mean.
48:27
So
48:28
I
48:28
have
48:28
no
48:28
trust
48:29
in
48:29
my
48:29
own.
48:29
So
48:29
it's,
48:29
it's
48:30
really,
48:30
it
48:30
really
48:31
wouldn't
48:31
help
48:31
me.
48:31
I'm
48:32
hopeless
48:32
in
48:33
that
48:33
respect,
48:33
hopelessly
48:34
skeptical.
48:35
But
48:35
I've
48:35
always
48:35
felt
48:36
that,
48:36
you
48:36
know,
48:36
psychedelics
48:37
has
48:37
these
48:37
things.
48:37
But
48:38
does
48:38
that
48:38
mean
48:39
it
48:39
is
48:39
putting
48:40
you
48:40
in
48:40
touch
48:41
with
48:41
ultimate
48:42
reality
48:42
and
48:42
is
48:42
veridical
48:43
in
48:43
terms
48:44
of
48:44
what
48:44
it
48:44
reveals?
48:45
Or
48:45
is
48:45
it
48:45
just
48:46
like,
48:46
you
48:46
know,
48:47
an
48:47
exaggerated
48:48
punch
48:48
in
48:48
the
48:48
eye
48:49
where
48:49
you
48:49
see
48:49
stars?
48:50
So
48:50
I,
48:50
I
48:51
can't
48:51
make
48:51
that
48:51
adjudication.
48:52
I
48:52
can
48:52
describe
48:53
what
48:53
other
48:53
people
48:54
think
48:54
about
48:54
this.
48:55
So
48:55
in
48:55
the
48:56
paper,
48:56
I
48:56
do
48:56
not
48:57
try
48:57
to
48:58
dissect
48:58
and
48:59
analyze
48:59
each
49:00
theory.
49:00
I.
49:00
I
49:01
dissect
49:01
it
49:01
and
49:01
analyze.
49:02
I
49:02
don't
49:02
adjudicate
49:03
it.
49:03
I
49:03
don't
49:03
say,
49:03
well,
49:04
this
49:04
makes
49:04
sense.
49:04
This
49:04
doesn't
49:05
make
49:05
sense.
49:05
Here's
49:05
the
49:05
argument
49:06
for
49:07
it.
49:07
On
49:07
occasion,
49:08
like
49:08
the
49:08
psychedelics,
49:09
I'll
49:09
say
49:09
that
49:10
I
49:10
have
49:10
been
49:11
a
49:11
skeptic
49:11
whether
49:12
this
49:13
gives
49:13
insight
49:14
into
49:14
ultimate
49:14
reality.
49:15
And
49:16
here
49:16
are
49:16
some
49:16
people
49:17
who
49:17
think
49:17
it
49:17
does,
49:18
and
49:19
I
49:19
leave
49:19
it
49:19
at
49:20
that.
49:21
And
49:21
maybe
49:22
to
49:22
refine
49:22
the
49:23
question
49:23
there,
49:23
Robert,
49:24
one
49:24
could
49:25
ask,
49:25
well,
49:25
do
49:26
psychedelics
49:26
or
49:27
altered
49:27
states
49:27
of
49:28
consciousness
49:28
or
49:29
any
49:29
of
49:29
the
49:30
practices,
49:30
contemplative
49:31
practices,
49:32
for
49:32
example,
49:32
that
49:33
induce
49:33
them,
49:34
what
49:34
kind
49:34
of
49:35
knowledge
49:35
do
49:35
they
49:36
offer?
49:38
There's
49:38
of
49:38
Course,
49:38
what
49:38
are
49:38
the
49:39
types
49:39
of
49:39
knowledge
49:40
and
49:41
how
49:41
veridical
49:41
are
49:42
they
49:42
and
49:42
how
49:43
can
49:43
we
49:43
test
49:43
for
49:44
them?
49:44
And
49:45
perhaps
49:46
to
49:46
refine
49:46
your
49:47
question,
49:47
we
49:47
could
49:48
say,
49:48
well,
49:49
ultimate
49:50
knowledge.
49:50
That's
49:51
a
49:51
big
49:51
question.
49:52
Various
49:52
kinds
49:53
of
49:53
psychological
49:54
knowledge
49:54
about
49:54
the
49:55
structure
49:56
of
49:56
the
49:56
psyche,
49:56
psychodynamics,
49:57
etc.
49:58
Probably
49:59
so,
50:00
and
50:00
very
50:00
profound.
50:01
I
50:01
agree
50:01
with
50:01
you
50:02
100%
50:02
on
50:02
that.
50:03
Absolutely.
50:03
I
50:03
don't
50:04
consider
50:04
myself
50:04
an
50:05
expert
50:05
on
50:06
either
50:06
contemplative
50:07
practices
50:07
or
50:08
psychedelics,
50:09
but
50:09
I
50:10
absolutely
50:10
agree
50:11
with
50:11
that,
50:11
that
50:11
there's
50:12
enough
50:12
data,
50:12
enough
50:13
evidence
50:13
that
50:13
shows
50:14
that
50:14
there
50:14
is
50:15
certainly
50:15
therapeutic
50:16
benefit
50:17
to
50:17
both.
50:18
Undoubtedly
50:19
that
50:20
I
50:20
think
50:20
is
50:20
almost
50:21
scientifically
50:21
irrefutable,
50:22
that
50:22
there's
50:23
a
50:23
therapeutic
50:24
benefit
50:24
to
50:24
each
50:24
of
50:25
those
50:25
under
50:25
different
50:26
conditions.
50:26
There
50:27
is
50:27
kinds
50:27
of
50:27
information
50:28
that
50:28
is
50:29
accessible
50:29
that
50:30
way
50:30
about
50:30
the
50:31
nature
50:31
of
50:32
the
50:32
psychology
50:33
that
50:33
is
50:33
unavailable
50:34
other
50:35
ways,
50:35
some
50:35
of
50:35
which
50:36
can
50:36
be
50:37
scientifically
50:37
tested,
50:38
but
50:38
probably
50:38
some
50:38
of
50:38
which
50:39
even
50:39
cannot
50:39
be
50:39
scientifically
50:40
tested.
50:41
But
50:41
I'd
50:42
put
50:42
a
50:42
pretty
50:42
large
50:43
moat
50:44
between
50:44
all
50:44
of
50:45
that
50:45
and
50:46
ultimate
50:46
reality.
50:47
Oh,
50:47
yeah,
50:49
Very,
50:50
very
50:50
wise.
50:51
When
50:52
we
50:52
get
50:52
to
50:52
ultimates,
50:54
we're
50:54
talking
50:55
big
50:55
stuff.
50:56
Stay
50:56
tuned
50:57
for
50:57
part
50:57
two
50:57
of
50:58
this
50:58
fascinating
50:58
conversation
50:59
with
51:00
Robert
51:00
Lawrence
51:00
Kuhn.
51:01
We
51:01
continue
51:02
to
51:02
explore
51:02
the
51:03
many
51:03
theories
51:04
on
51:04
what
51:04
is
51:05
consciousness.
51:06
And
51:06
as
51:06
often
51:06
happens
51:07
in
51:07
these
51:07
convers
51:08
conversations,
51:08
we
51:08
finish
51:09
strong.
51:09
Enjoy.
51:11
Thank
51:11
you
51:11
very
51:11
much
51:12
for
51:12
being
51:12
a
51:12
part
51:13
of
51:13
this
51:13
conversation.
51:14
We
51:14
hope
51:14
that
51:15
you
51:15
were
51:15
moved,
51:15
as
51:16
we
51:16
are
51:16
moved,
51:17
being
51:17
part
51:17
of
51:17
it
51:17
ourselves.
51:18
We'd
51:19
also
51:19
like
51:19
to
51:19
say
51:19
that
51:20
this
51:20
is
51:20
being
51:20
funded
51:21
by
51:21
Roger
51:22
myself.
51:22
It
51:22
comes
51:22
out
51:22
of
51:23
our
51:23
pockets.
51:23
So
51:23
if
51:23
you
51:24
would
51:24
like
51:24
to
51:24
help
51:24
us
51:25
to
51:25
mainly
51:26
to
51:26
get
51:26
this
51:26
podcast
51:27
out
51:27
to
51:27
more
51:27
people
51:28
because
51:28
the
51:28
bigger
51:29
audience
51:29
have,
51:29
which
51:29
is
51:30
steadily
51:30
growing.
51:30
But
51:30
the
51:31
more
51:31
people
51:31
we
51:31
can
51:31
reach
51:32
in,
51:32
the
51:32
more
51:32
marketing
51:33
we
51:33
can
51:33
do,
51:33
the
51:33
more
51:34
positive
51:34
effect
51:35
we
51:35
can
51:35
have
51:35
on
51:35
the
51:35
world.
51:36
So
51:36
we've
51:36
done
51:36
that
51:37
a
51:37
couple
51:37
of
51:37
ways,
51:37
but
51:37
we'd
51:38
like
51:38
you
51:38
to
51:38
buy
51:38
us
51:39
a
51:39
cup
51:39
of
51:39
coffee.
51:39
Very
51:40
simple.
51:40
And
51:40
I
51:40
do
51:41
that
51:41
with
51:41
podcasts
51:42
that
51:42
I
51:42
support
51:43
and
51:43
I
51:44
find
51:44
it
51:44
very
51:44
satisfying.
51:45
So
51:45
thank
51:46
you
51:46
for
51:46
your
51:46
help,
51:46
thank
51:47
you
51:47
for
51:47
your
51:47
presence
51:47
and
51:48
thank
51:48
you
51:48
for
51:48
all
51:49
you
51:49
are
51:49
and
51:49
all
51:50
you
51:50
do.
51:50
We
51:50
love
51:50
you.
51:59
Sam.