311 | Annaka Harris on Whether Consciousness Is Fundamental

/ Philosophy, Thinking / 26 Comments

Questions about consciousness range from the precise and empirical -- what neurons fire when I have some particular experience -- to the deeply profound -- does consciousness emerge from matter, or does matter emerge from consciousness? While it might be straightforward to think that consciousness arises from the collective behavior of atoms in the brain, Annaka Harris and others argue that consciousness could be the fundamental stuff from which matter arises. She talks with a variety of experts in her new audio series, Lights On: How Understanding Consciousness Helps Us Understand the Universe.

annaka harris

Support Mindscape on Patreon.

Annaka Harris received a BFA from New York University. She is the author of Consciousness: A Brief Guide to the Fundamental Mystery of the Mind. She is a co-founder of Project Reason.

26 thoughts on “311 | Annaka Harris on Whether Consciousness Is Fundamental”

  1. Grant Castillou

    It’s becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman’s Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with only primary consciousness will probably have to come first.

    What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990’s and 2000’s. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I’ve encountered is anywhere near as convincing.

    I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there’s lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order.

    My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar’s lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman’s roadmap to a conscious machine is at https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461

  2. Jim Wade

    Is it feasible that an AI machine will ever be able to experience a moment of genuine surprise?

  3. Aaron Bowden

    This interview was terribly frustrating to listen to. Sean was courageous in his tongue biting.

    The examples that Annaka pointed to demonstrate the complexity of the brain and the need for greater research in neurology and the emergence of self awareness, cognition and memory, but they were not demonstrative of the need for a ‘paradigm shift’ to pan-psychism (with or without the label).

    All organisms from single cells to humans respond to their environment. They receive stimuli from their environment and respond. As organisms evolve, the ‘assembly space’ in their stimuli receptors grow more complex. Senses develop. Memory develops. Communication develops. Self awareness develops. These are tools that emerge along an evolutionary spectrum. Different organisms have more or less of these tools, and so have different qualities/degrees of ‘consciousness’.

    Non-life (e.g. rocks, the abacus, space, atoms, quarks) do not have awareness. They have no assembly space. They are in-animate and unconscious. Consciousness is not fundamental.

    The Standard Model has mapped out all the ‘mesoscopic’ forces and particles. There is no evidence for consciousness in matter. The mysteries that remain in particle physics relate to the very small and the very large, but the operation of the everyday world that we reside in is known.

    I assume Annaka is genuine in her search for an answer to curiosity, but she sounded more like Deepak Chopra than a thoughtful commentator in this field. Although you can look at this as an innocent investigation into the roots of consciousness, the assertion that fundamental physics needs to be overturned and a paradigm shift is required is at best unhelpful and at worst dangerous in a climate of expert skepticism.

    Calls for paradigm shifts should only be made in the face of overwhelming evidence, not after some fireside chats with experts and a hunch based on psychedelic infused New Age mysticism.

  4. Mike Ellis

    I came here to say what Aaron Bowden said in his first, penultimate, and last paragraphs; but he said it much better than I could.

    I’d add that one of the most frustrating parts was her refusal to answer questions, to “put her money where her mouth is,” or make any testable predictions. She sounded like a politician trying to non-answer a question or a job applicant trying to hide that they had no idea how to answer the question (“quick, say paradigm shift!”).

    I felt that I’d never spent so long listening to someone say so little. It was over an hour to say not much more than, “If consciousness is fundamental, that would sure change things.”

    Or maybe I’m grumpy from back pain and taking it out on her.

  5. Ted Farris

    I think Aaron Bowden’s comment nails it here. Sean was being almost to kind to Annaka. Her thinking is muddle headed and confused. She doesn’t define her terms and jumps from idealism to panpsychism to panpsychism without the label to epiphenomenalism. Perhaps Annaka was taken in by Bernardo Kastrup’s lunatic fringe idealism or Philip Goff’s mystical religious panpsychism somewhere along the way. Her discussion of the self without giving any idea of what she means by that concept is a hopeless mess.

    Humans and animals are biological organisms. The biological organism you are is the self. And that’s true whether you change your views over time from physicalism to idealism. Biological organisms need to be aware of their surroundings to survive, consume nutrients and reproduce. As encapsulated organisms, the way we preserve ourselves is by navigating the world using our awareness of it to find and take what we need or want. The simplest bacteria are aware of their environment and move toward food and away from danger and all animals do the same. That awareness which is so essential to our survival is what consciousness is. Consciousness is the farthest thing possible from being epiphenomenal. It drives our behavior and actualizes our needs and desires. We just don’t know how it does that.

    We have no good theory for the mechanism of consciousness. Saying it is neurons firing, is not an explanation for how consciousness works. A good theory of consciousness should tell you why some people prefer Burger King to McDonalds and why others prefer Burgundy to Bordeaux. And it would also have to explain how the unconscious mind works and how things move from the unconscious to the conscious mind and back again.
    Neuroscience is nowhere near doing any of that.

    Annaka also seems to forget that consciousness includes the unconscious mind, which contains far more information and knowledge than what is conscious at any given moment. You can search the unconscious mind imperfectly through memory but most of it remains hidden until it somehow pops out again.

    None of the speculative theories we have so far developed like integrated information theory or global workspace theory have come close to explaining it. And consciousness has never been observed outside biological organisms and we have no evidence that a machine could ever be conscious. The key aspects of consciousness are awareness, and the fact that it is embodied, emotional and goal oriented. Machines have none of these elements. They just process information. The fact that conscious awareness also processes information is no indication that an information processing machine can be conscious. This is a fact that utopian AI accelerationists and Doomers too often forget.

  6. Patrick Gallagher

    I won’t be too critical of someone who is earnestly seeking answers to a very fundamental question. That said, the cornerstone phrase “felt experience” puzzles me and raises questions like “felt by whom” ?
    From a physicalist perspective, “felt experience,” like the sense of a solid self, may be a type of illusion created by the brain. This raises the further question of whether the brain can have perceptions that are direct, but not “felt.” Maybe it’s no accident that direct perception (i.e. no brain illusions involved) is one of the deepest insights of meditative traditions.

  7. Howard Gary

    Near the end of the podcast Sean asked Anaka “At what point does the coherence of the system qualify as being a self?” She related the story about a friend who was at the beach with his daughter. They were looking at the waves and his daughter said, I wish we could take one home. And he joked let’s get a bucket, let’s bring it home. And that kind of shows the illusion that we call it a wave, but it’s really a system. It’s an ever-changing, never-ending system in nature.
    This is one of the main reasons why concepts like consciousness are so hard to define, not only in other people, animals, organisms, AIs, etc., but even in our selves.

  8. Lex van Gelder

    The one qustion I’m left with is, will AI ever recognise humans as a conscious beings?

  9. Jean Lapointe

    I’m with Ted Farris on this one.
    But, these theories are needed as they slowly bring us forward to understanding what consciousness is, and how it works. Along the way, we fly off in many directions.
    I wish we could find out , before I’m done ( 85yrs).
    Just curious !

  10. Jim Wade

    Some of the responses have been very hard on Annaka, and even the host for not being more confrontive. These materialists may not be aware that she has an impressive ally in the person of the great physicist Max Planck who declared, “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”

  11. Howard Gary

    The question is consciousness fundamental or emergent is not a settled issue. Kudos to scientist like Annaka Harris who are willing to explore new ideas, often having to endure ridicule from the public and fellow researchers.
    It’s similar to the question what came first the chicken or the egg. Scientifically, the answer leans toward the egg. Long before chickens existed, their ancestors laid eggs, and at some point, a genetic mutation in one of those eggs resulted in what we now call a chicken. Evolution wins that round. But on a broader level, the question challenges how we think about beginnings and cycles. A timeless riddle that reminds us to think deeply about cause and effect.
    Ref: Microsoft Copilot

  12. Marco

    Did Annaka ever had a conversation with Daniel Dennett? It is uncanny how Annaka’s seem to borrow from Dennett way of thinking. And then only at the end take a different turn. To imagine a conversation between the two would go to my best imagined Dennett impression something like this. Dennett would acknowledge all Annaka’s concerns about our intuitions about consciousness that might be wrong especially our inability to place consciousness somewhere causally . Annaka concludes from this that we have to think differently about our intuitions we historically have about consciousness and Dennett would cheer her on and congratulate her on her thought process up to this point. Then a discussion will have to take place about the implications of this new established realisation. Dennett would wait for Annaka to share her thoughts abouts possible steps forward and try to reason her out of some of her newly embraced possibilities. Because these possibilities ( Annaka doesn’t want to call it panpsychism) are extensively talked about during the history of philosophy. From Plato to Berkeley to Hegel, Fichte and eastern philosophies (Tao?) Because this paradigm shift Annaka sees projected in our future understanding is not that much of a shift at all. Annaka just want science to embrace her new intuitions. And what would Dennetts point be that’s worth taking home from all of it? I think it would be not to try to make science fit our first person acquired intuitions about consciousness but the other way around. That’s the real paradigm shift that didn’t take place yet. And much harder to digest. Acknowledging that our most heartfelt directly felt experience is something else than they seem to be.

  13. Howard Gary

    Is there a connection between chaos and consciousness? Some theories suggest that consciousness emerges from the interplay between chaos and order in the brain. The brain doesn’t function like a rigid computer – it thrives on a balance between randomness and structure, allowing for creativity, adaptability, and complex thought.

    “You need chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.”
    Friedrich Nietzsche

  14. Jef Allbright

    Interesting show, not so much for its direct content, ostensibly about the nature of “consciousness”, but for providing another example of how deeply confused we can be while being considered scientific and reasonable.

    At issue here is not whether “consciousness” is somehow fundamental, but that epistemology is fundamental. It’s simply the case that all knowledge is necessarily perspectival—there is _always_ an implied observer as Max Planck was pointing out in the quote earlier in this thread. But people get twisted _when the observer is the observed._

    All this talk about “felt” experience, and the “immediacy” of “direct” experience—it neglects the ineluctable role of the observer in any description of (perceived) reality. Ironic that Annaka details the illusory aspects of the phenomena, and she even highlights that our reported experience is dependent on memory for its reports, but then succumbs to the illusion itself.

    This epistemological weakness is pervasive and reinforced by culture and (even scientific) tradition. Sadly, it has a practical impact on our ability to form clear, coherent, extensible thinking on very real matters of agency, morality and ethics, justice, and social decison-making (politics) — all of which hinge on the relationship between the observer and the observed, especially when the observer (at various scales of self-identification) _is_ the observed.

  15. Tommie Lindgren

    I totally follow everything she says up until “consciousness is fundamental”. I mean, I’m totally there with her on everything before that. I just don’t get how she makes the leap! Consciousness (or sentience) exists in some form in many biological systems, fine. So, consciousness is a gradient, fine. How does that make it fundamental though? Color vision exists on a gradient and comes in many varieties in nature therefore: color vision is fundamental! Smells happens when molecules interact with other molecules in a nervous system therefore: smell is a basic building block of the universe! Her reasoning doesn’t make sense to me but maybe I’m missing something… ?

  16. Geoffrey Nay

    I found the discussion had interesting examples, but I too am confused. I think a problem is terminology. She defined a hierarchy: awareness, sentience, and self-awareness. I would like consciousness to be the next entry in that hierarchy.
    Then she explained that there may be an ingredient that is common to all these states, apparently including things with no awareness, and she and others call it consciousness. Completely confusing. This “ingredient” needs a different name, and then on with the hunt. I suspect there is a culture with a word for it. And my apologies to Max Planck.

  17. Howard Gary

    How does Max Plank’s (1858-1947) view that consciousness is fundamental, and that matter is derivative from consciousness contrast with other scientist’s perspectives?
    Planck’s view aligns with certain interpretations of quantum mechanics that suggest consciousness plays role in shaping reality. This idea resonates with physicists like John Archibald Wheeler (1916-2008) who proposed the “it from bit” concept, arguing that information is the foundation of reality rather than matter. Similarly, Eugene Wigner (1902-1995) emphasized the role of consciousness in quantum mechanics, suggesting that the observer pays a crucial part in determining physical outcomes.
    On the other hand, many scientists adhere to a more traditional materialist framework, where consciousness is seen as a product of neural activity rather than a fundamental aspect of reality. This perspective is dominant in neuroscience and mainstream physics, where consciousness is studied as an emergent phenomenon rather than a primary force shaping existence.
    While Planck’s view has more or less gone out of fashion it does invite deep philosophical and scientific discussions about the nature of reality.
    Ref: Microsoft Copilot

  18. Howard Gary

    How do John Wheeler’s delayed-choice and Eugene Wigner’s Friend thought experiments add some credence to Max Planck’s suggestion that consciousness is fundamental, and matter is derivative?
    1. Wheeler’s Delayed-Choice Experiment: This experiment suggests that the behavior of a quantum particle (wave or particle) is determined at the moment of measurement, even if the choice to measure is made after the particle has already traveled. This implies that reality is not fixed until observed, reinforcing the idea that consciousness plays a role in shaping physical reality.
    2. Wigner’s Friend Thought Experiment: Wigner proposed that a quantum measurement depends on the observer’s consciousness. If an observer inside a lab measures a quantum system, they see a definite outcome. However, an external observer who hasn’t looked inside still considers the system in a superposition. This paradox suggest that consciousness might be necessary to collapse quantum states, supporting Planck’s notion that consciousness is primary.
    Both experiments challenge the idea of an objective, independent reality and suggest that observation – potentially linked to consciousness- plays a fundamental role in determining physical states. This aligns with Planck’s view that ‘mind precedes matter’, rather than the other way around.
    Ref: Microsoft Copilot

  19. Howard Gary

    The debate over whether consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality or merely an emergent property of physical processes is a fascinating one. Here’s a breakdown of some key figures on both sides:

    Scientists Who Believe Consciousness is Fundamental
    1. Daviid Chalmers- Known for coining the term “hard problem of consciousness”, he suggests that consciousness might be a fundamental property of the universe, akin to space and time.
    2. Christof Koch- A neuroscientist who has explored the idea that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality, supporting integrated information theory (IIT).
    3. Giulio Tononi- Developed IIT, which proposes that consciousness is an intrinsic property of certain physical systems.
    4. Philip Goff- A philosopher advocating for panpsychism, the idea that consciousness is a universal and fundamental feature of reality.
    5. Thomas Nagel- Argues that materialist explanations of consciousness are insufficient and suggest that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of nature.

    Scientists Who Believe Consciousness Emerges from Physical Processes
    1. Daniel Dennett- A strong advocate for the idea that consciousness is an illusion created by cognitive processes.
    2. Patricia Churchland- A neuroscientist who argues that consciousness arises from brain activity and does not require any fundamental status.
    3 Stanislav Dehaene- Studies neural correlates of consciousness and supports the idea that consciousness is a result of brain computations.
    4. Anil Seth- Suggests that consciousness is a controlled hallucination generated by predictive processing in the brain.
    5. Francis Crick- Proposed that consciousness arises from neural activity, famously calling it “the astonishing hypothesis”.

    Why the Divide?
    o Fundamentalists argue that consciousness cannot be fully explained by physical processes and must be a basic feature of reality, much like gravity or electromagnetism.
    o Emergentists believe that consciousness arises from complex interactions within the brain and does not require any special fundamental status.

    This debate continues to evolve, with new theories and perspectives emerging!

    Ref: Microsoft Copilot

  20. Jim Wade

    Kurt Godel proved mathematically with his “Incomplete Theorem” that there are truths that cannot be validated through computation. Roger Penrose, who was deeply affected by Godel’s proof, became convinced that consciousness was not derived from the process of computation.

  21. Tommie Lindgren

    Howard Gary: sure you can go with some kind of “argument from ignorance”-route and say that we don’t understand what constitutes a measurement, therefore consciousness does it, therefore consciousness is fundamental. That doesn’t seem like what she was doing though. She had some kind of top-down approach. I just didn’t follow it.

  22. Howard Gary

    Tommie Lindgren: A top-down approach to solving a question involves starting with a broad, overarching perspective and breaking it down into small, more manageable parts. Instead of diving straight into details, you begin with the big picture- identifying the core concepts or framework- and then systematically refine the problem into subproblems.
    This is a legitimate way to tackle a question. The problem arises when one has already made up their mind beforehand what the answer to the question should be and this results in circular reasoning; a logical fallacy in which the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises, rather than being supported by independent evidence. Essentially, the argument goes in a loop, with the claim being used as its own proof.
    Whether or not Annaka Harris had already made up her mind that consciousness is fundamental before she began her investigation only she can know. In fact, she may not even have aware that she had.
    The same goes for someone who claims they have proof that consciousness is not fundamental but emergent.
    In the end whether or not consciousness is fundamental or emergent may be one of those questions for which the answer is impossible to determine for certain!

  23. Tommie Lindgren

    Howard Gary, I sure hope it is answerable! I would want to know! I am not saying a top-down approach is invalid. I’m just saying I couldn’t follow her reasoning. Maybe I’d have to watch the documentary. Could you follow the reasoning? How did she, would you say, come to the conclusion that consciousness is fundamental?

  24. Howard Gary

    Tommie Lindgren: Most of the time during the podcast Annaka Harris, even though she wouldn’t admit it, sounds like she believes in panpsychism- the theory that consciousness exists at all levels of reality, even the smallest particles, and has always been present rather than being a product of biological evolution. But when pressed by Sean Carroll near the end of the podcast she replied:
    0:54:25:.7 AH: I’m not a panpsychist.
    I suppose it’s possible to resolve the so-called “hard problem of consciousness” – the idea that subjective experience cannot be fully explained by physical processes alone without resorting to panpsychism, but if there is I’m not aware how.
    Like you I had a hard time following Annaka’s reasoning and cannot offer a suggestion to why she came to the conclusion that consciousness is fundamental.
    By the way if there really is an answer to the question “is consciousness fundamental, or emergent from physical processes?”, and I had to bet my life on the correct answer I’d bet it was emergent- What about you?

  25. Veronica Schiaffini

    I recently finished reading “Phantoms in the brain” by Dr V.S. Ramachandran. His theory of the temporal lobes being somewhat responsible for consciousness is a theory I haven’t heard from anyone else. I would love to listen to Sean talk about this with him.

  26. JimB

    This brought Wittgenstein’s warning to mind: “Nothing is so difficult as not deceiving oneself.”

Comments are closed.

Scroll to Top