Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal - The Consciousness Iceberg [Layer 2]: The Hard Problem, Carl Jung, Nondualism, Buddhism

Starting point is 00:00:00 As you rise to a new day, rise to something more. Good Financial Game. Introducing the new BMO Eclipse Rise Visa Card. The credit card that rewards your good financial habits. And helps you rise from bill payer to reward slayer. Rise to it with the BMO Eclipse Rise Visa Card. And get rewarded for paying your credit card bill in full and on time each month. Terms and conditions apply. Click the banner or visit demo.com slash rise to learn more.

Starting point is 00:00:30 Bumble knows it's hard to start conversations. Hey, no, too basic. Hi there. Still no. What about hello handsome? Who knew you could give yourself the ick? That's why Bumble is changing how you start conversations. You can now make the first move or not. With opening moves, you simply choose a question to be automatically sent to your matches. Then sit back and let your matches start the chat. Download Bumble and try it for yourself. Welcome back to the Consciousness Iceberg, a project where we'll explain consciousness from several distinct angles, including the latest theories from the Academy, such as

Starting point is 00:01:14 Integrated Information Theory, even Yoshabok's theories, Pantsichism, as well as other traditions like insights from the Vedic texts and the different schools of Buddhism. In Layer 1, we dipped our toes into the waters of consciousness, covering the foundational aspects such as basic definitions, the mind-body problem and its dualistic challenges, the nature of sleep dreams and altered states as variations in consciousness, the free will versus determinism debate with its implications for moral responsibility, and the exploration of the self and identity questioning the nature of self-awareness and personal continuity. In Layer 2, which is this layer, we'll explore the hard problem of consciousness, qualia,

Starting point is 00:01:58 non-dualism in Indian philosophy, and even John Verveckis and Carl Jung's ideas, all explained extremely simply. My name is Kurt Jaimungal, and ordinarily I use my background in mathematical physics to analyze theories of everything, however today we have a consciousness iceberg that's heavily inspired by Robert Lawrence Kuhn's comprehensive behemoth article on consciousness, which I recommend you check out. The link is in the description and his closer to truth series on consciousness as well. Now, let's begin with the second layer of consciousness. The Hard Problem of Consciousness

Starting point is 00:02:35 The Hard Problem of Consciousness was introduced by David Chalmers in 1995. Since then, it's become a central thorn in the side of the philosophy of mind. It asks a simple but beguiling question. Why does subjective experience exist? More specifically, why does it feel like something to be conscious when what we have is supposed to be dead matter at the fundament? This problem is distinct from the so-called easy problems of consciousness. These ostensibly easy ones involve explaining cognitive functions like attention and behavior control. They are considered easy because they can, in principle, be solved by standard

Starting point is 00:03:16 methods in cognitive science. The hard problem, however, is purportedly entirely different. At its core, the hard problem highlights something called the explanatory gap That is to say the difficulty in explaining how or why physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experiences while the mind-body problem that we spoke about in the previous layer of this iceberg is Broader link in the description to that by the way, the hard problem focuses specifically on the subjective, experiential aspects of consciousness. So let's consider a philosophical zombie, a being that behaves exactly like a human but lacks inner experience. The hard problem asks why we aren't such zombies.

Starting point is 00:04:00 Why and how does neural activity supposedly create the taste of chocolate or the experience of red? Now by the way, there are several approaches that have been proposed to address the hard problem. Number one is Mysterianism, which argues that human cognitive capacities are fundamentally unsuited to solve this problem. In some ways, it's like throwing up your hand. Now number two is Panpsychism, which suggests consciousness is a fundamental feature of the universe, present in some form in all matter. Number three is idealism, which we will explore later, and roughly speaking it suggests that the foundational lithified rock of reality is conscious experience itself, or consciousness

Starting point is 00:04:41 itself. And number four, illusionism, which argues that the hard problem itself is an illusion. We'll explore each of these in subsequent layers. Qualia. So what the heck are qualia? Well, they're the subjective qualitative aspects of our conscious experience. You know that there's the redness of red, the painfulness of pain, and the tastiness of say that pizza you had last night. Those are examples of the what-it's-like of consciousness. Now, here's where it gets disorienting. Imagine you're looking at a sunset. So you're seeing

Starting point is 00:05:17 these vibrant reds, these oranges and purples. They're painting the sky. But what if, stay with me here, what if your red is my blue? So what if we're seeing the same wavelengths of light but experiencing them completely differently? This is what philosophers call the inverted spectrum thought experiment. And it's a classic way to think about qualia. So hold on, you may be thinking, can't we just look at someone's brain and see what they're experiencing? Now, this is where we run into that explanatory gap again.

Starting point is 00:05:49 We can map every neuron firing when you see that sunset, but that still doesn't tell us what it feels like for you to see it. Now, not everyone's on board with this qualia business. Some people, like the late Daniel Dennett, see the podcast in the description, argue that qualia are just an illusion. He says that once we explain all of the functional aspects of perception and cognition, that there's nothing left to explain. So it's a tad like saying, once you know how a magic trick works, there's no real magic left. Indeed, there never was. On the flip side, others take qualia extremely seriously. There's even a view called qualia

Starting point is 00:06:29 realism that says that these subjective experiences are fundamental features of reality. It's akin to saying that the universe is made of math, matter, and feelings. Some people like André Gómez-Emelson have this view, though they may not consider math or matter as part of their ontology, but something derivative. And in later layers, we'll explore those types of theories in both podcast form and in iceberg form, so subscribe to get notified. For now, take a moment to pay attention to your subjective experience, the feeling of your breath, the sounds around you, the thoughts floating through your mind.

Starting point is 00:07:07 That my friends is the mysterious world of qualia and phenomenal consciousness. Advaita Vedanta Advaita Vedanta is a school of Hindu philosophy that proposes a radical idea, non-dualism. Advaita literally means not two. But what does that mean? Well, it's suggesting that reality is fundamentally unified. There's no separation between individual self, Atman, and the ultimate reality, Brahman. Now you may be thinking like, hold up bro, I'm fairly certain I'm separate from the

Starting point is 00:07:44 chair that I'm sitting on, and in Advaita Vedanta, they would say that this perception of separation is an illusion, what they call Maya. Now this ties into what we've been discussing about consciousness and the nature of reality. Remember our chat about qualia and the what it's like to be aspect of consciousness. Advaita Vedanta takes this to the extreme. It's not just about what it's like to be you. It's about what it's like to be everything, because at its deepest level, everything is one,

Starting point is 00:08:14 at least according to this school. Now, this idea of non-dualism isn't unique to Indian philosophy. It echoes in Western thought as well. Spinoza, for instance, proposed a form of pantheism where God and nature were one in the same. And more recently, some interpretations of quantum mechanics have hinted at a deeper interconnected universe. See the Amanda Gefter podcast in the description about cubism.

Starting point is 00:08:39 But Advaita Vedanta goes further. It suggests that our sense of self, the quote unquote you that you think you are, is itself an illusion. This might sound wild, but it's not too far from some modern neuroscientific views that see the self as a kind of useful fiction created by the brain. Now, you might be wondering, if everything is one, why does it seem so not one? This is where the concept of levels of reality come in. Advaita Vedanta proposes different levels of truth, from the absolute, where everything is indeed one, to the more conventional, where we experience separation.

Starting point is 00:09:21 It suggests that our everyday experience, so that stream of thoughts, that set of feelings, the perceptions that we usually call consciousness, is just at the surface level, and beneath that is a deeper, unified consciousness that we're just usually not aware of. In later layers, we'll explore how these ideas connect with other philosophical and scientific perspectives on consciousness. We'll look at how they might relate to theories like integrated information theory or even Donald Hoffman's interface theory of perception.

Starting point is 00:09:56 John Vervecky's Relevance Realization How do our minds figure out what's important in any given situation? Think about it. Every second, your brain is bombarded with a tsunami of information. Sights, sounds, smells, thoughts, memories. It may literally be chaos out there. Though somehow, your consciousness manages to make sense of it all. That's relevance, realization, and action. How does this tie into that whole what it's like to be or first-person experience aspect that's central to consciousness studies?

Starting point is 00:10:30 Well Vervecki is saying that the very essence of your subjective experience, your qualia, if you will, is shaped by how your brain determines what's relevant. He proposes four ways of knowing. These are crucial for consciousness. Number one is propositional, so knowing that. Number two is procedural, so knowing how. Number three is perspectival knowing, so knowing what it's like. And the number four participatory knowing, knowing by being.

Starting point is 00:10:59 Instead of getting stuck in what some call the Cartesian dualism trap, John is proposing something more dynamic, more process-oriented. There are echoes of integrated information here, with its emphasis on how information is integrated in the brain, and there's a touch of Leibniz's monads as well, in the way that Vervecky sees consciousness as fundamentally active and perspectival. Topics we'll explore in detail later. But perhaps the most earth-shattering aspect of Vervecky's theory is how it deals with the self. Remember how we talked about in Invita Vedanta they suggest that the self is an illusion? Well, Vervecky doesn't quite go that far.

Starting point is 00:11:38 Instead, he says that our sense of self emerges from this ongoing process of relevance realization. It's not a fixed object, it's a dynamic and ever-changing process. In later layers we'll delve deeper into how Vervecky's ideas connect with other theories of consciousness, from the neuroscientific to the mystical. But before we move on to the next topic, I'd like you to pay attention to how your mind decides what's relevant. I understand you may find my sultry voice is the most relevant thing in this moment currently and I don't blame you. But the point is, are you choosing to pay attention?

Starting point is 00:12:16 Or does this selection process happen prior to the process of noticing itself. Vervecki would say that relevance realization is pre-egoic, meaning it's prior to even the construction of you. Panpsychism and the combination problem Panpsychism proposes that consciousness is a fundamental feature of the universe, present in some form in all matter. It's not saying that your coffee mug, say, is sitting there contemplating its existence, but rather that the basic building blocks of reality have some rudimentary form of experience or subjectivity. This idea gained traction recently, with philosophers like David Chalmers and Galen Strassen arguing

Starting point is 00:13:03 that it may offer a solution to the hard problem of consciousness we discussed earlier. The reasoning is as follows. If we can't explain how consciousness emerges from non-conscious matter then perhaps consciousness was there all along. But panpsychism faces its own challenges. Chief among them is the combination problem. If tiny bits of matter have tiny bits of consciousness, how do these combine Panpsychism faces its own challenges. Chief among them is the combination problem. If tiny bits of matter have tiny bits of consciousness, how do these combine to form the rich, unified conscious experience that we have? So it's not just about adding more and more little consciousnesses together.

Starting point is 00:13:37 That would be like saying you can understand a novel by looking at the individual letters. Some thinkers, like Philip Goff, podcast with him in the description, have proposed versions of panpsychism that try to address this. Cosmopsychism, for instance, suggests that the universe as a whole is conscious and our individual consciousnesses are somehow derived from this cosmic mind. Now, this sounds like a variation of what Bernardo Castro believes in his analytic idealism, which will be discussed in later layers, so subscribe to get notified, but Castrop dislikes panpsychism for some subtle reasons that, again, we'll get to next time.

Starting point is 00:14:16 Interestingly, panpsychism resonates with some of the interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the idea that consciousness plays a role in collapsing the wave function. It also echoes certain Eastern philosophical traditions, like the Vedantic concept of universal consciousness we touched on earlier. Critics argue that panpsychism merely pushes the explanatory burden back a step. Instead of explaining how consciousness emerges from some non-conscious matter, we now have to explain how it all combines and evolves into this complex form that we experience. However, as neuroscientist Christophe Koch puts it, the only thing we know about consciousness is that it exists.

Starting point is 00:14:59 Buddhist Consciousness, Yogacara and Madhyamaka Views Yoga Kara, often translated as mind only or consciousness only, posits that we perceive, posits that what we perceive as external reality is actually a perception of consciousness. Now this doesn't mean that the physical world doesn't exist, but rather that our experience of it is shaped entirely by our minds. It's reminiscent of the idealist philosophers we touched on earlier, but with a Buddhist flavor. Mariamika, on the other hand, emphasizes the concept of emptiness, or sannyāta. This isn't nihilism. Instead, it suggests that all phenomena, including consciousness, lack inherent existence and are interdependent. It's somewhat like saying consciousness isn't a thing but a process. Now it's this process view that Buddhists derive their notion of the self is an illusion.

Starting point is 00:15:54 It doesn't mean that the self doesn't exist or that you're an illusion, that's a common Western misunderstanding. Buddhists tend to believe that what's non-illusory must be non-changing. So since you're a process, we have to abandon the notion of a permanent, unchanging self. The Yogacara view of consciousness as fundamentally constructive echoes modern predictive processing theories, while the Madhyamaka's emphasis on interdependence resonates with inactive and embodied cognitive approaches.

Starting point is 00:16:26 You can hear more about these two types of theories, the predictive processing type and the inactive embodied cognition type, by clicking in the description for a podcast with Karl Friston. Interestingly, these Buddhist perspectives give a different take on the hard problem. Instead of trying to explain how subjective experience arises from objective matter, they question the distinction of subject and object itself. This approach sidesteps some of the conventional traps we often fall into when thinking about consciousness. In later layers, we'll explore how these Buddhist concepts relate to other theories of consciousness, from panpsychism to integrated information theory. For now, consider this. If, as these Buddhist schools suggest, our usual sense of self and reality

Starting point is 00:17:11 is fundamentally mistaken, what might a more accurate understanding look like? Global Workspace Theory Global Workspace Theory, proposed by Bars in 1988, is about the cognitive architecture for understanding consciousness. This is different from explaining consciousness. It more presupposes consciousness and then attempts to understand its inner workings as they relate to the brain. It suggests that our brain has a quote-unquote global workspace where information is broadcast widely to many unconscious

Starting point is 00:17:45 specialized processes. The theory uses a metaphor of a theater of consciousness. So now imagine a dimly lit theater where only the spotlight content is consciously perceived. This stage represents working memory with the spotlight controlled by attention. The audience consists of unconscious specialized processors like those for language, emotions, or sensory experience. Global workspace theory proposes that consciousness emerges when information gains access to this global workspace and is broadcasted widely.

Starting point is 00:18:18 This broadcasting allows for the integrated information across different brain regions, leading to coherent behavior and subjective experience. This view aligns with some neuroscientific findings. For instance, studies have shown that conscious perception is associated with long-range synchronization of brain activity, which could be the neural basis of the broadcast in global workspace theory. In this way, we focus here on the functional role of consciousness in cognition rather

Starting point is 00:18:47 than the hard problem. It says, hey, here's what consciousness does, even if we fully can't explain what it's like to be something. As usual, critics argue that global workspace theory doesn't address the explanatory gap. How does this broadcasting of information create subjective experience? However, proponents like Stanislas Dehaan have developed a more detailed neurobiological model based on global workspace theory, providing testable predictions about conscious processes, such as the idea that conscious perception would be associated with a late burst of activation in a

Starting point is 00:19:22 distributed network of brain regions. If consciousness is indeed a global workspace, then what determines what information gets access to this workspace and why do some contents of consciousness feel more vivid or even more real than others? Carl Jung's explanation for consciousness. Carl Jung proposed a model of the psyche that includes both conscious and unconscious elements. According to Jung, the conscious mind is just the tip of the iceberg, pun intended. Beneath lies the personal unconscious, containing forgotten or repressed memories and experiences, and even deeper, the collective unconscious. A repository of universal, inherited patterns of thoughts, experiences, even personalities that he called archetypes.

Starting point is 00:20:14 Central to Jung's theory is the concept of individuation, the process of integrating unconscious contents into consciousness. Jung's idea resonates with some Eastern philosophies that we've touched on. His concept of the collective unconscious, for instance, has parallels with the Vedantic idea of a universal consciousness. However, Jung's approach is distinctly Western and grounded in his clinical work and personal experiences. Also, the collective unconscious of Jung is less of a unified source of consciousness from which we all spring, and is more akin to a reservoir that we have in common.

Starting point is 00:20:51 So the difference is that in the Eastern case, you're seen as the ripple on the ocean, with little distinction between the ripple and the ocean, since they're both of the same medium, namely water in this case. Whereas for Jung, the collective unconscious is more akin to a shared ancestral memory or inherited evolutionary wisdom that influences our psyche, but Jung doesn't negate individual consciousness. So the collective unconscious is a common stockpile of archetypes and instinctual patterns that we all draw from, but we still remain delineated individuals.

Starting point is 00:21:24 For Jung, subjective experiences aren't seen as issues to be resolved like the hard problem suggests. Instead, Jung sees experience as being informative of elements of the psyche that require exploration and integration in the process of something called individuation. Now individuation means the process of becoming a whole, differentiated person by integrating conscious and unconscious aspects of one's psyche. This is in contrast to the oneness of the other theories of consciousness. In Carl Jung's view, individuation literally aids in becoming more distinctive, rather

Starting point is 00:22:01 than becoming more the same. In order to accomplish this, you would need to confront and integrate your shadow as part of your journey towards psychological wholeness. The shadow being the aspects of yourself you've repressed or denied. For instance, you may need to confront the part of you that's deeply envious when others succeed or gain accolade. Or you may need to confront your urge to falsity, that is, your tendency to bend reality by telling even the tiniest white lie. Those are aspects that need to be acknowledged, understood, and then integrated into your

Starting point is 00:22:38 conscious self, rather than suppressed, denied, or even worse, unacknowledged. And this will allow you to become a more complete individual. Jungian analyst James Hollis suggests that consciousness, in Jung's view, is not just awareness, but the carrier of meaning. This shifts the focus from what consciousness is to what consciousness does. That is to say, how consciousness creates and interprets meaning in your life. And there you have it. Layer 2 of the consciousness iceberg. We've explored quite some heavy concepts from the hard problem to Carl Jung's collective unconscious. Remember though, we're

Starting point is 00:23:23 still just scratching the surface. In layer 3, we'll delve even deeper into the murky depths of consciousness theories. If you found this intriguing, then feel free to subscribe to see the next layer. And if you need a refresher, layer 1 is linked below. Let me know what you'd like to see in layer 3 by leaving a comment. Also, if you're interested in the technical details of string theory, I've done a 3 hour deep dive into the mathematics of it in the string theory iceberg, also linked in the description. Thank you to our partner, The Economist. Firstly, thank you for watching, thank you for listening. There's now a website, curtjymungle.org, and that has a mailing list. The reason being that large platforms like YouTube, like Patreon, they can disable you

Starting point is 00:24:12 for whatever reason, whenever they like. That's just part of the terms of service. Now a direct mailing list ensures that I have an untrammeled communication with you. Plus soon I'll be releasing a one-page PDF of my top 10 toes. It's not as Quentin Tarantino as it sounds like. Secondly, if you haven't subscribed or clicked that like button, now is the time to do so. Why? Because each subscribe, each like helps YouTube push this content to more people like yourself, plus it helps out Kurt directly, aka me. I also found out last year that external links count plenty toward the algorithm, people like yourself, plus it helps out Kurt directly, aka me.

Starting point is 00:24:45 I also found out last year that external links count plenty toward the algorithm, which means that whenever you share on Twitter, say on Facebook or even on Reddit, etc., it shows YouTube, hey, people are talking about this content outside of YouTube, which in turn greatly aids the distribution on YouTube. Thirdly, there's a remarkably active Discord and subreddit for Theories of Everything, where people explicate Toes, they disagree respectfully about theories, and build as a community our own Toe. Links to both are in the description.

Starting point is 00:25:15 Fourthly, you should know this podcast is on iTunes, it's on Spotify, it's on all of the audio platforms. All you have to do is type in The theories of everything and you'll find it. Personally, I gain from rewatching lectures and podcasts. I also read in the comments that hey, toll listeners also gain from replaying. So how about instead you re-listen on those platforms like iTunes, Spotify, Google Podcasts, whichever podcast catcher you use. And finally, if you'd like to support more conversations like this, more content like

Starting point is 00:25:44 this, then do consider visiting patreon.com slash Kurt Jaimungal and donating with whatever you like. There's also PayPal, there's also crypto, there's also just joining on YouTube. Again, keep in mind, it's support from the sponsors and you that allow me to work on toe full time. You also get early access to ad free episodes, whether it's audio or video. It's audio in the case of Patreon, video in the case of YouTube. For instance, this episode that you're listening to right now was released a few days earlier. Every dollar helps far more than you think. Either way, your viewership is generosity enough. Thank you so much. you

Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal - The Consciousness Iceberg [Layer 2]: The Hard Problem, Carl Jung, Nondualism, Buddhism

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.