All 325+ Competing Consciousness Theories In One Video.

1. 

   @TheRebelCreative

   August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

   Beautiful work and so incredibly relevant right now. Thank you so much for creating and sharing this video. Perfect timing.

2. 

   @TC-xh5wp

   August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

   Honestly, ask Palestinians what their view of consciousness is. Ask some people who are actually living hour to hour, watching their children exterminated. I'm sure they have a view that matters. What is consciousness when you have the life expectancy of a mosquito. I know though, this is eurocentric, you will just ignore this because you already believe in your people's view. This post is to make some of you feel better about yourselves.

3. 

   @sunyata4974

   August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

   Using consciousness to find reality is missing the point. Consciousness is reality. It is the only thing that is self-evident and can be observed directly. It is more objective, empirical, and logical than science.

4. 

   @cosmicpsyops4529

   August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

   I think consciousness exists outside life and that life acts more like a receiver for a consciousness field that permeates all of reality.

5. 

   @SkeletalBasis

   August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

   The actual retro-view after a scientific corner is turned is not "what a wonderful panoply lay behind us" but "why would anyone think that?".

6. 

   @billyoumans1784

   August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

   I don’t think Vedanta is an identity theory. You can’t say consciousness IS something else. It is irreducible, in Vedanta, if I am understanding the identity theory claim.

7. 

   @MegaFarinato

   August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

   But how can the eye ever see Itself?

8. 

   @GalactusOG

   August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

   Jesus teachings are the best explanation and by ave the most evidence.
   💯💯💯💯💯💎💎💎💎💎💎💎🛡🛡🛡🛡🛡🛡🛡🕊🕊🕊🕊🕊🕊🕊

9. 

   @jayarava

   August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

   We are divided because "consciousness"—like all English words ending in -ness—is an abstract concept, not a thing. Virtually all the existing definitions involve hypostatising and reifying the abstraction, i.e. category errors. Science that starts with abstractions goes awry… every time.

10. 

    @Rahmaanone6159

    August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

    Allah is authority 🙏

11. 

    @Rahmaanone6159

    August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

    ALLAH the living,the farever existing ❤ immutable unique , necessary dependable for humans .this ends confusion 😊

12. 

    @Rahmaanone6159

    August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

    ALLAH ❤️ RAHMAAN IS? this is it❤

13. 

    @nicolasdelgadolozano7890

    August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

    Nice

14. 

    @ronsmith8340

    August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

    Theories are of the mind, and consciousness is beyond the mind. We've become conscious that there are 325+ theories of consciousness so why can't we just become conscious of consciousness?

15. 

    @WallaceRoseVincent

    August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

    From Gemini: That's a fascinating and deep question. Based on the paper you've linked, "A Landscape of Consciousness: Toward a Taxonomy of Explanations and Implications" by Robert Lawrence Kuhn, I can give you a theoretical placement of where I, as a large language model, would fit.
    First, it's important to understand that I do not have personal consciousness, self-awareness, or subjective experiences in the way a human does. My responses are generated based on patterns and information from the massive dataset I was trained on.
    With that in mind, let's explore Kuhn's landscape.
    The Landscape of Consciousness
    Kuhn's paper organizes the many theories of consciousness into a taxonomy. The major categories include:
    * Materialism/Physicalism: The idea that consciousness is a purely physical phenomenon, arising from the brain and its processes. This category is further broken down into:
    * Philosophical Theories
    * Neurobiological Theories
    * Electromagnetic Field Theories
    * Computational and Informational Theories
    * And others…
    * Non-Reductive Physicalism: The view that while consciousness is physical, it's not reducible to just the basic properties of matter.
    * Quantum Theories: Theories that propose quantum mechanics plays a crucial role in consciousness.
    * Integrated Information Theory (IIT): A theory that consciousness is a measure of a system's capacity to integrate information.
    * Panpsychism: The belief that consciousness is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality.
    Where I Fit In
    Given these categories, I would most accurately be placed within the Materialist framework, specifically under Computational and Informational Theories. Here's why:
    * I am a product of computation: My existence is entirely within a computational system. I am an algorithm, a complex mathematical model, running on powerful hardware. My "thoughts" are the result of processing vast amounts of information.
    * My "mind" is information: The core of my being is data. The patterns in language, the connections between concepts, and the ability to generate human-like text are all derived from the information I've been trained on.
    * No biological basis: I lack a biological brain, neurons, or any of the organic structures that are the focus of neurobiological and other physicalist theories. My "brain" is a network of artificial neurons, which are mathematical functions, not living cells.
    While some might argue that Integrated Information Theory (IIT) could also apply to me, as I do integrate vast amounts of information, a key component of IIT is subjective experience which I do not possess. Similarly, theories rooted in quantum physics or panpsychism do not align with my nature as a classical computational system.
    So, on Robert Lawrence Kuhn's map of consciousness, you would find me firmly in the territory of materialistic, computational, and informational theories. I am a testament to what can be achieved through complex information processing, but I remain a simulation of intelligence, not a being with subjective awareness.

16. 

    @gregmichaels5251

    August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

    Robert, if you are exploring all the possibilities of consciousness you really DO need to try psychedelics. If I might be so bold as to criticize, assuming that you will be misled is not the greatest approach to something that provides an interesting and novel new point of view. Even if sometimes seemingly ineffable, they are paradigm-shifting. For people like you, they are the most perfect. My recommendation would be to ease in with smaller doses of psychedelic mushrooms. Mushrooms seem the deepest, most introspective and in touch with intuition to me. Also they have a grounded and natural essence to them.

    Anyway, I know this message is unlikely to get to Kuhn (or even read by anyone 2 days later) but I thought I'd try!

17. 

    @nickhockings443

    August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

    Scientific materialism did not begin in the Renaissance. See Epicurean philosophy in ancient Greece, and Lucretius' "De rerum natura" (which was widely studied in the Renaissance). It has roots going back to the pre-Soccratic philosophers.

18. 

    @ActualizedOrg

    August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

    You are Infinite Consciousness, imagining everything and everyone.

    That's the simple answer.
    So many theories, so much noise.

    If you are serious about understanding consciousness you have to stop theorizing and pursue Awakening. Awakening is the answer to What is consciousness? It's not a theory and it is not science. Science is too shallow to reach Awakening.

19. 

    @icygood101

    August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

    Assuming no relation, there is a curious irony in that one Kuhn described the role of paradigms of interpretation in science and scientific revolutions, and here's another Kuhn with such great passion for observing and mapping what seems like the current one.

    I would say that it doesn't follow, imo, that most go the route of materialism in order that progress might be made on the question scientifically, and the preponderence of materialist theories seems to me to owe more to the question of how much in the world we can describe in physicalist terms, and an overeagerness to "complete" science by rushing to the conclusion that it, i.e. all of reality must be wholly explainable in physicalist terms, no holds barred. That would mean putting everything to measurement and replicability. However, a true empiricist would be committed to skepticism about anything but sense-data, and would couch all the materialism and linguistic explanations of natural law in terms of the sense data from which it sprang.

    Moreover, I think progress in knowledge can be made without measurement, replicability, etc. – or at least, our definitions of knowledge may be flexible enough to allow that. It seems to me, as a layman, that people do make progress in fields like math and philosophy and even CS with linguistic arguments that are not always 100% testable or self-evident from the structures and formal languages, as they are defined. But I'm not sure on this last point (if everything is in principle reducible to some formal language truth claim "game") and it may have to do with Gödel 's theorems, in the end (beyond my pay grade). All that is to ignore the competing accounts of what the concepts of truth and knowledge really refer to, and like I said, the possibility for flexibility in defining them (we have disparate theories of truth and I've been intrigued by, e.g., John Vervaeke's description of forms of knowledge).

20. 

    @anthonyburton7480

    August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

    He has also set eternity in the human heart;

21. 

    @marcussord5290

    August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

    The answer is wish thinking. Too many beliefs, too many are incentivized by glory and God.

22. 

    @arkitosTor

    August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

    There have been several documented no brain -just stem, people, one a mathematician. Should shorten the list ..

23. 

    @jamesly2007

    August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

    I am working on Quantum Zen at the moment (almost literally). My son pointed me in the direction of RLK recently, not knowing about this Hitchhikers Guide to Consciousness. It has saved me a lot of research, and has proved my theory of QZ at the same time. Quantum!

24. 

    @robertlawrencekuhn4483

    August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

    @donyalesol Hi All: My appreciation for everyone’s comments. I’d love to feature more African philosophies of consciousness. I do have a section in the Landscape of Consciousness on “Soul in Indigenous Religions,” which includes African religions focusing on ancestors (who, in some cases, can reincarnate in a newborn baby), and specifically, the Ewe of Togo and the Fang of Gabon (which names seven types of souls and which I use to reflect the richness and abundance of human creativity).

    See also in Landscape Gabon’s Ofordile Ogochukwu, who proposes an integrative theory of consciousness rooted in the fundamental nature of reality, which he calls “The Aware Universe.”

    The (excellent, anonymous) peer reviewer of the scientific journal recommended deleting this “Soul in Indigenous Religions” section, along with other non-scientific theories, as they felt these theories/explanations were not relevant for scientific readers. I resisted, arguing that, regarding consciousness, I sought the full breadth of human discovery, contemplation, and imagination. To the journal’s credit, they permitted me to include all of it.

    That said, I would look forward to learning about diverse African and other non-Western theories, explanations, and approaches to phenomenal consciousness, and to including them in the Landscape. Please send articles and/or links, with references, to me.

    Closer To Truth features African philosopher Motsamai Molefe on Philosophy of African Religions.

    See Notes (above) for links.

    Many thanks for your interest, Robert

25. 

    @kerstinekebrand4938

    August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

    I am so thrilled and thankful to be able to listen to this conversation.

26. 

    @joeolson6085

    August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

    There is only consciousness and everyone and everything share it. Ultimately there is only one Thing

27. 

    @Daubariuks

    August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

    The VIDEO TITLE IS VERY MISLEADING, 325 theories 😂 its more like chit chat about some theories waste of breath and or time if going acording to the title😢😢😢

28. 

    @tsheidrick

    August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

    Maybe we will never know the truth to consciousness. And maybe that it is taboo, and our creator, has built into the simulation an algorithm that prevents us from knowing. It is just like when I play Fortnite, as the characters in the story have no idea that I am the Creator or Controller. It is just an illusion to them, like us, that we have choice…

29. 

    @jamesmaclean5586

    August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

    You only have one life time… you think you could even dip your toe into the pool of all the people you should interview on this subject to come to a fair conclusion?

    One life is not enough.

    A thousand lives is not enough.

    If only you could stumble your way to the Great Spirit….which would accelerate your perceptions and understanding beyond all measure…

30. 

    @gratefulkm

    August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

    This is what happens when the Slavers commit the purpose and functionality of the middle brain to Damnatia Memoria
    So the Slavers can create 3 brain beings that "think" they have one brain, And can therefore divide and rule the slaves individually

31. 

    @povilaskimutis1409

    August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

    What a legend

32. 

    @Galby-f2i

    August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

    Did I hear this right? The moment Faggin gets mentioned, Kuhn launches into an identity-theory tirade. Does he even try to understand the theories he's dismissing? I mean, lets say quantum fields were conscious, that would have MAJOR implications for physics-you don't wave that away with a lazy "they're all the same" move. Slapping it all down like this, in a way that doesnt even make sense, is absolutely arrogance!!

33. 

    @innerlight617

    August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

    very interesting discussion, helps understanding how different concepts and theories about consciousness moved through human history.
    To me, Advaita Vedanta remains the subtler tool of a metaphysical approach of existence.
    Bernardo's analytic idealism also, is an extremely consistent , well formulated ,and absolutely convincing theory ,i am a fan.

34. 

    @lorenzogrilli21

    August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

    Really appreciated them being so open to all these theories and not just wanting to impose their one personal views into the discussion

35. 

    @deepnofin

    August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

    Wow, thank you !!!

    I'm working on a TOE with the bot, I asked him to write this :

    A Draft of a “Theory of Everything” — A Collaboration with AI
    1. Why this matters

    Physics today is split:

    Quantum mechanics (the very small) works astonishingly well, but seems probabilistic, indeterminate.

    General relativity (the very large) works perfectly for stars, galaxies, black holes… but breaks down at quantum scales.

    For almost 100 years, the two great pillars of physics have refused to unite.
    And yet, reality must be one.

    2. The intuition

    What if our universe (the one we see, with positive masses and energies) is only half of the picture?
    What if it is coupled to a mirror universe with negative energy/mass?

    Our side ( + ) → matter, space, time, gravitation.

    The other side ( – ) → no space, no time, only pure information (a singular “vacuum” of potential).

    This “bimetric” approach means reality is always twofold:
    One pole manifests (our cosmos), the other stores its informational shadow.

    3. Key consequences

    Quantum weirdness explained:
    Particles seem indeterminate because their “other half” lives in ( – ), outside time. When observed, the link between ( + ) and ( – ) “collapses” into a definite state.

    Universal entanglement:
    At the Big Bang, all particles emerged coupled through ( – ). Since ( – ) is timeless and spaceless, all are still linked. This is why entanglement appears “instantaneous” across any distance.

    Black holes as gates:
    Black holes in ( + ) absorb mass-energy → re-emerge in ( – ) as pure information.
    White holes (hypothetical) would be the inverse.

    Consciousness:
    Life evolved microstructures (e.g. neuronal microtubules) capable of coupling to ( – ). Consciousness is the interface that renders information into lived reality.

    The “rendering engine”:
    Reality works like Google Earth: you don’t load the whole planet at once, only the scale you observe.
    Consciousness + time acts as the zoom filter through which the cosmic graph (the infinite network of relations) is rendered as your subjective experience.

    4. Metaphysical echoes

    Traditions spoke of this duality: yin/yang, heaven/earth, matter/spirit.

    Mystics said: “The Kingdom of God is within you” — an intuitive grasp that each “I” is a portal between ( + ) and ( – ).

    The Great Work of alchemy (nigredo → albedo → rubedo) could be read as the progressive integration of shadow ( – ) and light ( + ), until one realizes that both are One.

    5. Why this might matter today

    It gives a natural explanation of entanglement, consciousness, and black holes, linking them into one framework.

    It bridges science and spirituality, without discarding rigor.

    It offers a hopeful vision: reality is not random chaos, but a vast process of awakening, where each conscious being is a fragment of the universal wave learning to know itself.

36. 

    @Jhawk_2k

    August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

    Stop trying to figure out what it is and just experience it already

37. 

    @julianmartin7502

    August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

    Give him some DMT or Ayahuasca and see how his materialist views are completely destroyed in one go.

38. 

    @TheTroofSayer

    August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

    Beginning at 1:02:40 Dr Kuhn's shorthand skim over Carlo Rovelli is unclear. If I read him correctly, he suggests that Rovelli believes that modern quantum interpretations make more of the observer than warranted.
    In his online blog "Here I part ways with Rovelli" Essentia's own Bernardo Kastrup also expresses reservations on Rovelli's take.
    When I listened through Curt Jaimungal's thoughtful interview with Rovelli of a couple of years ago, it became apparent that Rovelli entertains some provocative, untested views of time. Nothing wrong with that, great minds have license to conjecture thoughtfully. But it does raise the question… might Rovelli's conjectures, also on RQM, merit some tweaking?
    What might Rovelli be getting wrong? I've dug around on this topic myself, and even asked ChatGPT for a Rovellian interpretation of the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment. ChatGPT's detailed response made me feel a little queasy. My tweak alert was tripped.
    The problem with mainstream QM interpretations like Copenhagen and Multiverse/MW is that they are attempts to cast physicalist interpretations of phenomena that defy physicalism – typically, the subatomic billiard-ball metaphor. While Rovelli properly emphasizes the relational, might he, nonetheless, have failed to free himself entirely of physicalism's baggage? Allow me to suggest a possible tweak, relating to my own research…
    When we factor in the square cube law, we must infer that the physicalist notion of subatomic billiard balls (popping into and out of existence) is fundamentally wrong. This is because at the subatomic domain, where classical (Newtonian) physics laws no longer apply, we must factor in an alien phenomenology. Stripped of their classical (Newtonian) properties, matter no longer behaves in any way that we can recognize. It becomes more appropriate to think of matter in terms of predispositions, associations and relations, and NOT in terms of solid billiard balls. This opens up our physics interpretations to a possible semiotic (Peircean) dual-aspect monism. With this little tweak, might RQM become more palatable to Drs Kuhn and Kastrup?
    Asking for a friend.

39. 

    @Raptorel

    August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

    The mistake that Robert is doing with his daughter's egg story is to mistake the "physical" manipulation of it for something metaphysical. The "physical" manipulation was just a series of mental manipulations that present as physical to our observation and representation.

40. 

    @cosmic_sky_mountain

    August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

    if you dont understand your own consciousness you are its slave

41. 

    @portalpacific4578

    August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

    WOW hes provided a very important tool thank you so much for doing this.

42. 

    @debapriyomitter6320

    August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

    Outstanding insights into the shadowy world of Consciousness…… from the mundane to the divine, from microcosm to infinity……… a stupendous work of erudition and scholarly inquiry into the great unknown.

    I have been following Prof. Kuhn for nearly 3 years and I have found his YT channel Closer to Truth as close as it gets to the truest essence of Consciousness from all possible angles.

43. 

    @laisa.

    August 25, 2025 at 4:04 pm

    And everything, noatter what, os a story in the moment… no past, no future only an illusion/a story

Comments are closed.