In this 15 min video, Prof. Max Tegmark of MIT presents his case that 
consciousness is an emergent property of the structure and arrangement of 
atoms; and our subjective awareness of consciousness is the feeling of such 
 Consciousness is a mathematical pattern: Max Tegmark at TEDxCambridge 2014 
 Consciousness is a mathematical pattern: Max... As a physicist, Max Tegmark sees 
people as "food, rearranged." That makes his answer to complicated questions 
like "What is consciousness?" simp...
 View on 
 Preview by Yahoo 

 He continues that computational entities must first have a minimum level of 
perception, the units of which he calls "Perceptronium"; as well as minimum 
computational abilities ("Computronium").  Then, given further emergent 
properties of matter, consciousness exists.  [my comment: on this point, 
there's a potential flaw in identifying under what exact circumstances 
something is conscious.  Here, he's strictly using consciousness with a lower 
"c", as distinguished from the Hagelin/Nader model of Consciousness (big "C") 
as the Unified Field. In other words, consciousness is a self-aware entity in a 
dualistic sense.  Also, he fails to explain exactly when or under what 
circumstances a robot can become conscious
 The next necessary ingredient for consciousness is an independent, nitrated, 
unified whole, since (for example) most robots have separate parts that the 
whole fails to recognize as an independent entity. He didn't 'mention the Hal 
Computer in Kubrick's movie which supposedly reached a conscious state with an 
independent personality.

 Next, he says that there is no need for hidden forces, such as an elan vital.  
A dead bug is simply a different arrangement of molecules compared to a live 
 In short, consciousness is an emergent property of atoms that goes beyond 
identifying the mere substrate; but nonetheless, derived from molecules.  The 
many Laws that govern the emergence of everything in the universe is 
mathematics, (i.e. mathematical physics), as an even more fundamental substrate 
than atoms and molecules; since the patterns of relationships between the 
atoms/molecules must conform to what's possible and probable in the realm of 
pure mathematical physics.
 Now contrast Tegmark's model with the Hagelin/Nader model (on Youtube)....then 
decide for yourself.
 (imo) both models have flaws, or rather shortcomings in the 
MMY/Hagelin/Chopra/Nader model in not having experimental evidence.  In short, 
there's no experimental evidence for the existence of "Consciousness" with a 
big C, notwithstanding the vehement objections of the papers coming out of MUM. 
(if so, please cite a reference describing the experiment).
 Another possible flaw in the Hagelin model is that when he says "Unified 
Field", he's including quantum foam and the zero point energy.  But these 
substrates are exactly the staring point of non-MUM-influenced physicists who 
have no "need" (via Ockham's Razor) to even mention "Consciousness", i.e. 
Purusha.  Why not just start with the quantum foam and zero point energy, then 
go onto atoms, molecules, and ultimately, consciousness? Hagelin has not 
adequately explained the relationship between mere atoms and Consciousness; and 
even Nader states that "Consciousness is not a cause".  If IT's not a cause, 
then IT's uncaused, and not in the realm of scientific enquiry as Tegmark 
accepts it. .

 You can see from4ee

Reply via email to