Ep 890 - Consciousness Shmonsciousness P3: The Wren Wrestlemania Wrebuttal

Episode Transcript

Glenn (00:00):
Baby steps. This is Infants on Thrones.

Adam (00:05):
I'm looking for the further light and knowledge
father promised to send me.

Glenn (00:08):
Baby steps. Baby steps.

Wren (00:09):
Look for the good in everyone. Hey, Glenn. Thanks for
your response on your podcastresponding to my thoughts about
consciousness. I think thatmaybe the phrase consciousness
is fundamental, excites the twoof us in different ways. I think

(00:34):
you're very excited about thefirst part, the consciousness is
part, and I'm excited orinterested somewhat in the
second part, is fundamental.
And I think that that has ustalking past each other a little
bit or maybe trying to bring upseparate points to come to

(00:59):
different conclusions. When Italk about the conversation
being a dead end, I'm reallyreferring to the is fundamental
part being a dead end. And I'msorry to be ivory tower about
it, but when we talk about whatit means for something to be

(01:23):
fundamental, for me, it meanssome very specific things
because, you know, I had toresearch what fundamental things
were for a long time. And when Italk about having to catch up to

(01:45):
the conversation, what I'mspecifically talking about is
understanding the Copenhageninterpretation of quantum
mechanics and why the Copenhageninterpretation of quantum
mechanics is the de factoparadigm right now in academia
and in all modern quantummechanics research. Because, you

(02:11):
know, you made the point thatpeople at university, I guess
physicists specifically, don'tdon't ever question or don't
ever don't ever question thebase assumptions of the of of
physics, I guess, orspecifically the Copenhagen

(02:37):
interpretation of quantummechanics.
And we, of course, do actually,you know, when we're covering
quantum mechanics or when we didcover quantum mechanics, the
conversation got brought upquite a lot. And we talked and
discussed and had a lot oflectures about what the

(02:59):
underlying assumptions were forquantum mechanics. And let me
just talk shop maybe a littlebit or or talk about it more
explicitly. So quantum mechanicsalmost inevitably always comes

(03:21):
back to the double slitexperiment. And I know you're
familiar with the double slitexperiment.
Just about everybody is whereyou have two slits and you pass
a beam of particles through thetwo slits and you end up with a,
a wave pattern on any kind ofdetector behind the two slits.

(03:44):
And, if you cover up one of theslits, then it's no longer a
wave pattern that you detect.You actually detect a particle
dispersion pattern or a normaldistribution as if the particles
you were sending through thedouble slits were were particles
and not waves. But when you havetwo slits, then you get a wave,

(04:08):
pattern. And so it seems likeyour beam of electrons or your
beam of photons or anythingreally, is a wave.
So, you know, you have thisinevitable question of are these
things waves or are theyparticles? And you can do a

(04:29):
bunch of experiments to to tryto figure that out. But
ultimately, physicists in theearly twentieth century came up
with this concept of the what'scalled the wave function. And
the wave function is amathematical description of
what's happening in this doubleslit experiment. And really any

(04:54):
any wave like particle likesystem anyways.
So the wave function is amathematical expression. When
you manipulate the wavefunction, when you do operations
on the wave function using grouptheory, then you can determine

(05:15):
all kinds of statisticalprobabilities regarding the wave
function. And, most notably,there was Schrodinger who came
up with the Schrodingerequation, which is applying the
Hamiltonian operator to the wavefunction such that you're able

(05:36):
to, pull out the energy andmomentum probabilities of, your
wave particle structures.Anyways, the Schrodinger
equation basically solveseverything about the double slit
experiment. Right?

(05:56):
Or it explains all theobservations you make with that
type of an experiment. TheSchrodinger equation, you know,
this Hamiltonian operator actingupon the wave function, it
explains all kinds ofexperimental and natural
phenomenon that you can observein the lab, in nature. And it's

(06:23):
very, very successful at givinga mathematical description of
what you're observing, what youreyes are showing you, what your
data is showing you. It's a verysuccessful equation. It's works
to predict stuff very, verywell.

(06:45):
So what does it mean though?That's the big question that
physicists had at the earlytwentieth century. And that's
the big question that allphysics students have and all
physics professors have is whatthe hell does the Schrodinger
equation even mean? Like, what'show do we interpret this

(07:06):
solution? And so, you know, theyhad a lot of debates about it
and have been having debatesabout it, for a long time
because the solving theSchrodinger equation implies
that there is no determinism inthe universe, that your

(07:30):
statistical, results are notdeterministic.
And that is doesn't sit wellwith scientists because
scientists like to believe thatthere's an objective reality and

(07:52):
they subscribe like to they liketo explain the universe
materially, without having toinvoke the supernatural.

Glenn (08:02):
Hey, Ren. Thanks for the response. I'm sitting in the
backyard again, this time withno dog whining in the
background. You might hear somebells chiming because it's a
little windy, and maybe some ofthe other, outdoor ambient
sounds of this living consciousnature that we're all embedded
in. But I wanted to break inright here, first of all, to say

(08:26):
thank you again for thethoughtfulness that you brought
to your response.
I I didn't really feel like wewere talking past each other,
but I don't mean to invalidatethat you felt that way. I I feel
like we're doing somethingpretty meaningful here, like all
conversations like this. I Iguess maybe this is a way that
I've shifted a bit since in thefifteen years of Infants on

(08:50):
Thrones, like, coming in anddoing smackdowns and things like
this. Now I'm I'm moreinterested in, trying to
understand other people'sdifferences from mine than
trying to impose my way ofseeing things on others and
being like, what? I don't getit.
This is how I see it. I anyway.So the experiences that you and

(09:13):
I have are different. And, youknow, you've spent, what, how
many years immersed in thelanguage of logic and physics?
You've got a PhD in physics.
And I've spent years immersed inlanguage of stories and emotion
and belief systems and, youknow, there's similarities,
there's differences, but we'veboth trained ourselves in these

(09:34):
different forms of, like,pattern recognition, and we're
working with different toolkits. But, again, I don't see
that as a problem. I just see itas, a, I don't know, a kind of
collaboration. So not as adebate or an argument. I'm not
trying to change your mind oranybody's mind and, like,
enjoying sharing my experienceand then hoping to hear other

(09:58):
people's experience as well.
But the the funny thing is,though, I think we do end up
changing each other by doingthat even when we're not trying
to just because our brains arelike these sponges that just
absorb information, and thenthat becomes a factor when our
thalamus is allowing what comesin to become conscious or not,

(10:18):
but that's a little deep aside.So the reason I paused it here
is because there was somethingas you're talking about the
double slit experiment and thediscomfort that it causes for
scientists. You mentioned thatsolving Schrodinger
Schrodinger's equation impliesthat reality is not

(10:40):
deterministic, and this makesscientists uncomfortable because
they like to believe inobjective reality, and they
don't want to invoke anythingsupernatural. And, like, when I
heard you say that, I got alltangled up a little bit because
it it it just seemed like thismight be an area where our

(11:00):
perspectives are diverging alittle bit, and I'll talk about
that in a minute. Before I getto that, I wanna say why I care
about all this because you youmentioned at the beginning,
like, you think I'm moreinterested in consciousness and
you're more interested infundamental.
Yeah. Maybe. Yeah. That might bea way of saying that. Like, for
me, in my work as a therapist, Ioften sit across from people who

(11:23):
are, I don't know, confused, wemight say, about what's
happening inside them.
They're in pain. They're stuck.And part of that stuckness comes
from a kind of internaldissonance. There's something
going on beneath the surfacethat they can't quite see or
name, but it's definitelyshaping what they do actually

(11:45):
feel. It's impacting theirrelationships.
It's impacting their choices,their beliefs, and they can be
really frustrated. They don'tknow why they're acting a
certain way or why they can'tfeel joy, for example, or why
their thoughts keep spiraling.And I think in those cases so
what if consciousness isn't justsomething that we have, but what

(12:09):
if it's something that'shappening both within and around
us all the time? So what ifsubjective experience isn't just
an emergent glitch riding on topof a deterministic machine, but
part of the system'sarchitecture. So, like, what if
the things that we feel, ourfears and our insights and our
emotional responses are just asreal as our neurons and just as

(12:33):
structured as any wave function?
I mean, I think that's why Icare about these questions
because they help me hold spacefor the parts of people that
don't show up on the MRIs or onthe spreadsheets, and they give
me permission to treatsubjectivity as real. And I
imagine that your motivationsare different, and I can't say
exactly what they are. Onlyreally you can do that. But from

(12:55):
what you've shared so far, itsounds like your curiosity is
rooted in the challenge ofsolving real problems in
physics, problems that demandprecision, problems where even a
single loose assumption canunravel years of work. And
you've trained yourself to becareful with language, careful
with logic, and careful withinference.

(13:17):
And that's the discipline thatyou live in, and I completely
respect that. So I wanna beclear. I'm not challenging your
expertise or I'm or trying tofix science or trying to fix
physics. And when I mentionedthe ivory tower thinking
earlier, I wasn't trying to bedismissive. I was expressing a
frustration that I have aboutwhat I see are unexamined dogmas

(13:40):
that become walls that preventinquiry.
And, you know, like, I I'm gladyou gave me that example of when
you were in graduate school andyou guys would challenge
assumptions all the time. I I Idon't mean to imply that
scientists aren't human and theythey don't ask questions. I I
was talking about how in LightsOn, Annika Harris' one of her

(14:02):
main points is to say, let'schallenge this assumption about
the nature of consciousnesswhether

The Dodo Man (14:09):
or

Glenn (14:09):
not it's it's fundamental to reality. So this kind of
brings me back to why I stoppedright here in the conversation
because the part that you saidabout determinism and objective
reality really stood out to me.So you said that the
nondeterministic nature ofquantum mechanics makes some

(14:31):
scientists uncomfortable becausethey prefer objective reality
and they don't wanna lean intothe supernatural. But this is
where I get a little tangled upbecause for me, objective
reality doesn't requiredeterminism. Does it?
It doesn't requirepredictability. It just requires

(14:53):
presence. It requires thatsomething is happening whether
we understand it or not or wecan predict accurately what's
gonna happen. Something is stillhappening. It's just I didn't
totally understand all of thethings that are going on in it,
so I wasn't able to predict itaccurately.
That doesn't mean that there'ssomething wrong with reality.

(15:13):
Maybe it's my models ofprediction. There's some
variables that are hidden andunseen that just I'm unable to
perceive. And this is whereDonald Hoffman really helps me.
And also David Eagle Eagleman,which was he was interviewed by
Annika Harris, and he talksabout the Umwelt a lot and the
way that the brain has you know,perceives a fraction of the

(15:37):
world around us, you know, onlya fraction of the
electromagnetic spectrum, forexample.
But we see what we need to seein order to survive, and it
doesn't mean that just becausewe can't see it, it's not part
of objective reality. And and soI kind of applying the same
things here to determinism. Ijust when I heard you say that,
you're like, it proves that it'sa nondeterministic, and

(16:01):
scientists don't like thatbecause they like objective
reality. I'm like, well, why whydoes that make it any less
objective when you've got thesesplit? I don't know.
Maybe I just don't understandthe terminology. But if we go
back to the the double slit,this is the thought that I'm
having. If you will entertain mythought experiment here. From a
from a muggle. I'm a muggle,Ren.

(16:25):
If a photon hits a screen, like,in in one place instead of
another, and we weren't able toreally predict it with certainty
where it was gonna hit, Itdoesn't make it less real. It
doesn't mean that it'ssupernatural. It just means that
we're dealing with a form ofbehavior that's probabilistic or
maybe even responsive in someway that we just haven't been

(16:46):
able to figure out and model. SoI came up with this metaphor a
little while ago. This painterthat is just this master
painter.
He can paint anything he wants.So good. So good that he just
gets bored with it, and he wantssome variety. And so he does

(17:13):
something to the tip of hisbrush so that he makes the tip
of his brush unpredictable. Itcan lean to the left or lean to
the right or, you know, pushhard or soft or, you know, the
the individual bristles canswivel around in any direction.
And so he can do these bigdeterministic strokes with his
arm and, you know, paint, butwhen he pulls his hand back,

(17:35):
he's surprised by what he seesbecause the tip of his brush is
you know, it's got a will of itsown kind of thing. I wanna be
careful with this metaphor. I'mnot trying to smuggle in Jesus
or God or anything like this. II'm saying that the painter in
this case is the universe itselfand all of these individual

(17:56):
forces that make up existenceinteracting together, which I
see are as deterministic forces.And so I like to call this
painter, of course, Leonardodeterminist Vinci.
You see? You got it right there?Leonardo determinist Vinci and
then this little tip of whimsyon the tip of his paintbrush.

(18:16):
But it's a metaphor for thisidea of emergent complexity that
has within it an element ofsubjective experience. So it's
not all 100% deterministic orall 100%, like, unpredictable,
but it's a blending of thesethings.
And that's why you see thisrandom dispersal pattern in the

(18:39):
that we we just don't know whyit goes, but maybe I know this
is gonna sound like contrary.It's gonna sound ridiculous, but
maybe the photons that areinvolved in this double slit
experiment have some kind of afelt experience. They can feel
what it is like to be observed.And maybe they prefer to go this

(19:02):
way or that way or whatever.It's just like a little teeny
tiny variation.
And, yeah, scientists don't likeit because it means we can't
predict it, but there's so muchthat we can't predict. But it
doesn't make it not real, and itdoesn't mean that it's magical
to accept that there's a mysterythat's having a real effect, and

(19:25):
we don't know what it is. So atleast that's my approach with
it. Anyway, I'm gonna go back towhat it is that you're saying.

Wren (19:32):
They subscribe like to they like to explain the
universe materially, withouthaving to invoke the
supernatural. And, so a lot ofpeople tried to come up with
other explanations orinterpretations of of this

(19:53):
solution, and maybe even offerup other solutions. Famously,
the probably most successfulalternate interpretation or
alternate mathematicalformulation that you can come up
with to solve, or to explainobservations is David Bohm's

(20:16):
pilot wave theory, which whichsaves determinism at the cost of
locality. So if you use the maththat David Bohm came up with,
then you are no longer assumingthat there's a thing called

(20:38):
locality. Meaning, space itself,doesn't matter.
And, if you're usingSchrodinger's equation, you're
kind of saying time doesn'tmatter. Anyways, these are it's

(21:01):
hard it's hard to to talk aboutit without, writing equations
down and, like, explaining termsand the equations.

Glenn (21:12):
Alright. I'm pausing again, because there's something
you just said about how it'shard to talk about this stuff
without actually writing downthe math. And that really stood
out to me because I imagine thatfor you and for people who are
fluent in that language,Mathematics is more than just
numbers or calculations orsomething that gives you a

(21:33):
headache. It's a precise systemof symbols and relationships.
And when you understand thegrammar of it, when you know how
the symbols interact, you canuse it to describe incredibly
complex ideas in a very compact,succinct, elegant way.
So it's a shared language amongpeople who speak it. So I guess

(21:54):
my first question to you is, doyou see it that way? Like the
way that I just described it. Dodo you think that mathematics is
a kind of, like, universalcommunication tool, a symbolic
system that helps translateintuition and observation into
something that can be understoodacross minds? Or I don't know.

(22:16):
Do you see it any differently?Like, maybe more fundamentally,
like, it's something deeper thana symbolic language, that it's
something intrinsic to theuniverse itself rather than just
the way that we model it ordescribe it. And then there's
the second part of my questionbecause mathematics, powerful as

(22:36):
it is, is still, at least in theway that I see it, a human
creation, the symbol like asymbolic system built through
human perception and thenfiltered through the limits of
our cognition, our nervoussystem, our brains. You know? So
that makes me wonder, does thatalso limit what mathematics can

(22:59):
actually describe?
Can it ever truly be objective?You know? Or is it like we're
all trying to pull ourselves upfrom our own bootstraps? You
know what I mean? Is it alwaysgonna be shaped by the contours
of how we experience the world,or will it be able to help us
discover things outside of ourlimited ability to perceive?

(23:20):
And asking these questions, I'mnot saying that it makes it any
less useful. It obviously worksin ways that I just barely even
understand. It predicts, itexplains, it connects, but is it
the same thing as truth, or isit a tool that helps us get
closer to something real whilestill being shaped by our own
filters. Anyway, I'd love tohear you elucidate. Is that the

(23:48):
right word?
Just talk about that a littlebit, because it's not something
that I've studied formally. Infact, I was so excited when I
took humanities classes that Ididn't have to go the math
route. But anyway, I'm curiouswhat you think.

Wren (24:03):
Those are the best theories. Right? Like, the the
best theory is Schrodinger'sequation. Right? The the best
model is Schrodinger's equation.
It works really well. It worksall the time. It predicts
everything. Nobody really knowswhat it means. So they kinda
came up with the the Copenhageninterpretation of what it means,

(24:25):
which is don't think about itjust since the math works, it
works.
Let's do math and figure out allthese other problems, basically.
So, you know, we we talk aboutother implications that the

(24:47):
Schrodinger equation might haveall the time in physics, or we
did in university. I mean, youare right that I don't know that
consciousness isn't fundamental.But at the same time, there are
an infinite number of otherthings that I don't know are not

(25:13):
fundamental. Right?
Like, don't know that tachyonsdon't exist. Like, I don't know
that for sure. I believe thattachyons don't exist. But I
don't know that they don'texist. Same as like, I don't I
don't think that consciousnessis fundamental, but I don't know

(25:33):
that it's not.
But that's I mean, that thatdoesn't that doesn't give any
credence to the idea thatconsciousness is fundamental
because

Glenn (25:50):
Alright. So here we go. Let's let's pause on that line
again for a second. That doesn'tgive any credence credence to
the idea that consciousness isfundamental. And, you know, I'm
not arguing that it deservescredence in a strict scientific
sense.
What I'm more interested in iswhether it deserves

(26:13):
consideration. And I'minterested in this idea of
paradigm shifts, which is kindof at the heart of what Annika
Harris is doing in Lights Onthat I was kinda so excited
about. So, like, whether it'sworth using speculative
imagination to explore what itmight mean and to follow that
good question that you askedearlier, so what? Because, you

(26:39):
know, like, first of all, whatdo we actually mean when we say
consciousness is fundamental?I'm definitely not saying that
electrons are throwing partiesor they're making plans behind
the scenes.
I'm not trying toanthropomorphize nature, but I
am pointing to the fact that ourability to feel, to be aware, to
experience anything at allevolved from something. And

(27:03):
maybe it didn't just flip onlike a light switch one day in
the brain. Annika Harris puts itreally well in Lights On. The
idea that it's strange to thinkconsciousness just emerges at
some threshold of complexity.That starts sounding like we're
conflating human level awarenesswith something much more basic,

(27:24):
the sheer felt sense of being,which as she says might be,
like, you gotta be there kind ofphenomenon.
You know? Something that can'treally be proven externally, but
it's still very real. So thatmakes me think about the way
that you compared the idea offundamental consciousness to

(27:46):
tachyons. And I understand thelogic that you're using there.
Like, I think what you're sayingis just because we don't know
something doesn't make itcredible.
Right? Something like that. ButI don't think that those two
things carry the same weight,consciousness and tachyons being
fundamental because I've neverhad someone show up into therapy

(28:08):
that's in distress overtachyons. But I have sat with
countless people trying tounderstand why they feel the way
that they do. Their consciousexperience, their felt sense of
existing and processinginformation and their thoughts
and all these things that aretied to consciousness.
And often the thing that helpsthem isn't certainty, like not a

(28:32):
precise certainty that you coulddetail with a mathematical
equation. It's just simplyknowing that there's some kind
of reason even if they don'tunderstand it and that they're
not crazy for feeling the waythat they do. Their pain isn't
random, that their nervoussystem is responding to
something real even if theycan't name it. People say things
like, know, oh you're depressedor you're whatever, well, you

(28:56):
shouldn't feel that way, youknow, you you should be like
this, you shouldn't be thinkingthose kinds of thoughts, you
know, you know, all this stuff.You shouldn't, you shouldn't.
But the truth is, if you are,then you are and you do. And if
you do, then there's a reason.And that's where the idea of
felt experience beingfoundational, not in a grand

(29:17):
cosmic sense, but in a groundedinternal sense, I think can make
a real difference because it cancreate space for compassion and
coherence and healing. So,again, I'm not asking for
scientific credence of this, butI do think that the idea is
worth considering and exploringbecause I think the

(29:38):
ramifications are profound andit matters. Anyway, back to you.

Wren (29:43):
What is it that what is it that consciousness being
fundamental, what observationsdoes it explain that the
Schrodinger equation doesn'texplain? Right? That's I mean,
it doesn't it's not aboutwhether or not consciousness is
not fundamental. It's about ifconsciousness is fundamental,

(30:05):
what observations does itexplain that we can't explain
with the Schrodinger equation?

Glenn (30:13):
Oh, I loved that. That so that was such a great question.
What would consciousness beingfundamental actually add to the
Schrodinger equation? So if I'mthinking about that, maybe it
wouldn't add anything to theequation itself, but it might
explain why the wave functioncollapses the way that it does.

(30:36):
Because right now, all that wecan say is it collapses
unpredictably.
But what if thatunpredictability isn't just
randomness? What if it'sresponsiveness? What if the
indeterminism that we see isn'tnoise, but it's the imprint of a
felt experience at the mostbasic level of reality, like not

(30:59):
a human mind making choices, buta system feeling its context and
responding, like a system thathas been evolving to do this for
a long long time that goes waybeyond. Like it's it's way older
and wiser in that sense of theway that it processes
information than our consciouspersonality or ego, which is

(31:22):
something that grew out of it.So I I don't think that anything
that I'm suggesting here in thisexploration would change the
math and of course I'm prettyignorant when it comes to math,
but it might change what wethink that the math is
describing and it might changethe way that we feel about the

(31:44):
way that things should orshouldn't be.

Wren (31:45):
What observations does it explain that we can't explain
with the Schrodinger equation?When Copernicus started thinking
that the Earth revolved aroundthe sun, he didn't do that just
because he thought it was a funidea or a fun thought

(32:07):
experiment. There were actualphysical observations of the
stars that were not able to beexplained by by the previous
model of the universe,Aristotle's model of the
universe or right? There waslike parallax of the stars that

(32:33):
wasn't explained by aheliocentric model of the
universe. There was theretrograde the retrograde motion
of the planets that, could notbe explained good enough by a
heliocentric model of theuniverse.

(32:53):
There was, the phases of Venus.Those these were real
observations that, astronomersat the time, you know, they
couldn't explain with theassumption that, excuse me, not
heliocentric. I'm sorry.Geocentric. They were these are

(33:15):
assumptions that were notexplainable by Earth being at
the center of the universe.
Right? So what are theobservations if you're saying
that quantum mechanics isincomplete or the Schrodinger's
equation is incomplete? What arethe observations that
consciousness is a goodcontender to explain?

Glenn (33:36):
Oh, yes. Copernicus. I I love that you brought up
Copernicus here, Ren. Becauseyou talked about how Copernicus
didn't just speculate. Heproposed a new model because
certain observations couldn't beexplained by the existing
geocentric views.
Parallax, retrograde motion, thephases of Venus, real

(33:59):
observations that pointed to adeeper structure. And honestly,
I think that's kind of wherewe're seeing or kind of what
we're seeing with the doubleslit experiment. Not something
that is wrong with quantummechanics because we can't
predict it, but that we're stillsitting with these observations

(34:19):
that don't fit cleanly into ourcurrent intuitive understanding
of what reality is. So thatblurry edge between, like, wave
and particle and the influenceof observation, the collapse of
possibility onto actuality,these aren't glitches. The math
works.

(34:40):
But what if the math isdescribing something weirder
than we've really allowedourselves to imagine? So, no,
I'm not saying thatconsciousness is here to fix the
Schrodinger equation, and I'mnot claiming that something's
missing or even needs to befixed. What I am wondering
though is that, like withCopernicus, if a shift in
perspective, a paradigm shiftcould help us better understand

(35:04):
why the current model feels sostrange in the first place. And
maybe someday in the future,people will look back and say
something like, you know, forthe longest time we assumed that
consciousness wasn'tfundamental. We thought
subjectivity was just abyproduct of complex matter.
But then we began noticing thesepatterns, these relationships,

(35:26):
these relational behaviors,these unpredictable outcomes
that weren't just chaotic, theywere responsive. And once we
started considering feltexperience not as an emergent
fluke, but as part of theunderlying fabric, things
started making more sense. Andso maybe that shift wouldn't
just change the way we look atphysics, but it would change our

(35:49):
ethics or our economics, ourinterpersonal relationships.
Because when we start seeingreality as felt experience all
the way down, we also startpaying more attention to the
impact of our actions on others,on each other, on the ecosystem,
on the future. And we stopthinking in terms of control and

(36:10):
extraction without anyconsequences, and we start
thinking in terms of resonanceand reciprocity and homeostasis.
And we begin designing systemsthat don't just optimize for
efficiency, but they optimizefor coherence and well-being for
balance between inner and outerrealities. Getting inspired

(36:30):
here? Am I inspiring you?Inspiring me. But in that
future, like, maybe therapy, youknow, what I'm interested in,
this whole consciousnessquestion isn't just about
individuals, but it could be howdo we hold space for culture
wide dissonance.
Maybe the economy isn't just amachine, maybe it's a nervous

(36:51):
system that responds to, like,tariffs and stuff. Maybe the
climate change isn't just anexternal crisis. It's

Wren (37:01):
a

Glenn (37:01):
sign that the planet is feeling something, and we're
finally starting to listen. Sothat's the kind of future that
I'm interested in imagining, youknow, if we ever do look back
and say that was the shift,that's when we started to feel
reality differently. And to me,that's exciting and definitely
worth exploring.

Wren (37:20):
Quantum mechanics is incomplete or the Schrodinger's
equation is incomplete. What arethe observations that
consciousness is a goodcontender to explain? Right? I
mean, there are observationsthat aren't explained by the
standard model right now. Thebiggest one is the discrepancy
between general relativity inthe Standard Model.

(37:44):
But, you know, there's all kindsof there's like the super high
energy neutrinos that arediscovered every once in a
while. Nobody can really explainthose with the Standard Model.
There is, the asymmetry in theuniverse, in terms of matter
versus antimatter that's notexplainable with the Standard
Model. There is, the the largeor the the red dot galaxies that

(38:14):
have been discovered by theJames Webb Telescope that, are
not explainable. This is notthose those aren't explainable,
not by the standard model, butby, the current, understanding
of whatever the Hubble constantis.
But, you know, when you come toto quantum mechanics, the I

(38:38):
mean, we've we've built billiondollar machines to smash
particles together, and theStandard Model has been able to
explain all of the results ofthose experiments without
invoking consciousness. So isthere an observation that you're
aware of, that is notexplainable by the Standard

(39:00):
Model, but could be explainableif we assume that consciousness
is fundamental.

Glenn (39:06):
Alright. So you're asking here if I have an observation. I
mean, I guess it's a fairquestion. And we could ask what
is it that you mean when you'reasking if I have an observation
because from what I understandof it, the standard model does
an incredible job of explainingexternal behaviors, but doesn't

(39:27):
really explain why experiencehappens at all. So if you're
asking me to, like, say I'veobserved a rogue particle or
some math breaking anomaly, no,I don't have that.
But if you're asking what feltconsciousness might help
explain, then I'd say this, whydoes measurement even matter?

(39:53):
Why does observation collapse awave function? Why does
awareness even in its mostminimal implicit form seem to
make any difference at all? AndI don't think that's just a
philosophical curiosity. I thinkit's baked into quantum
mechanics itself.
It's the role of the observerwhere the the role of the

(40:15):
observer is one of the system'sunresolved observations. And I'm
not saying that consciousnessfixes the math, but maybe it's
been part of what we've beenobserving all along and we just
haven't recognized it for whatit is, if that makes any sense.
And something else I've noticed,not in a lab, but in life, this

(40:37):
idea that our brains have twomodes, like a left brain, more
logical, analytical, structured,and a right brain, more
intuitive, relational, open touncertainty. And to me, when I
think about it this way, thestandard model feels more left
brained and quantum mechanicsfeels more right brained. And

(40:58):
yet they both coexist.
They are both real. They bothgive rise to our experiences. So
maybe consciousness doesn't needto add anything to the equation.
Maybe it just explains why thewhole thing can feel so
beautifully contradictory. Andone more thing, maybe not an
observation in the scientificsense, but something that I

(41:20):
can't stop noticing.
Even in this very moment as I'mspeaking, air molecules are
moving. Sound is rippling. Thisvoice, my voice is really just
pressure variations movingthrough a field of matter
causing tiny movements in yourspeaker creating waves in the
air that move toward your bodyand press against your eardrum

(41:42):
and your body translates thatinto meaning. Like when met when
Jesse is sniffing around in theair looking for that ball that I
hide for her in the mornings,She's not looking, she's
sniffing. She's feeling for theshapes of molecules, these
invisible molecules in the airwith her nose.
And those molecules, they bendand they drift and they spread

(42:05):
depending on heat, humidity,motion, and then they fit into
these olfactory sensors if theshape is right. And I find
myself wondering, how do they doall these things and, like, how
do they know? How does amolecule sense what is hot or
cold? How does it respond soprecisely to the tiniest shift

(42:27):
in temperature, pressure, orproximity? It doesn't need a
nervous system to feel in theway that we do, but it still
responds.
It adapts, it dances, and itbends, and it moves in resonance
with the world around it. Andisn't that a kind of felt
experience? Not consciousawareness in the human sense,

(42:48):
not I think, therefore, I am,but it's a sensitivity and a
relational aliveness. So I don'tknow, Ren. Does that count as an
observation?

Wren (43:00):
So is there an observation that you're aware of, that is
not explainable by the StandardModel but could be explainable
if we assume that consciousnessis fundamental? I mean, Donald
Hoffman at least understandsthat to even talk about that,
you need to invent a whole newtype of mathematics that doesn't

(43:22):
currently exist. And he's beenworking on trying to invent that
mathematics. It's been slowgoing, but until he does invent
the that mathematics, the thethere's no more to really be
said about consciousness beingfundamental. Thank you for

(43:48):
listening to Infants on Thrones.
Infants on Thrones.

Glenn (43:58):
Alright. And I just wanna pause here again too on this
line where you said that there'snot really anything more to say
about consciousness beingfundamental until Donald Hoffman
invents new math. So okay. Let'sjust stop now and just shut up
and put our hands in our pocketsand, you know, like, don't know.
But, like, maybe you're right inthe world of physics in terms of

(44:20):
shifting equations or forming atheory.
Maybe there isn't anything moreto say there. But from where I'm
sitting, from this interest thatI have in mental health and just
kind of, like, homeostasis at aenvironmental level. I don't
know. I think there's a lot tosay whether Hoffman gets the
math right or not because everyday I'm sitting with people who

(44:44):
are trying to understand what itis that they're feeling. People
who don't know why they reactthe way that they do.
People who think that somethingmust be broken in them. And
people who look at them and go,I can't understand that person,
so there must be something wrongwith them. You know, like, when
people think that there'ssomething broken in them, it's

(45:04):
just you know what that's like.Right, Ren? But if there's
really, a pattern, this imprintthat's a system responding to
inputs in ways that we justhaven't fully recognized yet,
then you don't have to sayyou're broken.
You say you're responding tothings in ways that I don't
understand, but I can be morecompassionate about. So I you

(45:27):
know, like, if I'm thinkingabout myself here, I've come to
recognize in myself that I carrythis almost constant unconscious
feeling that I'm somehow in thered, that, like, I'm on the
debit side of life's balancesheet. And I don't think that

(45:49):
that's true that I really am,but I feel that way
unconsciously. And I think it'sa result of neglect and
emotional abuse and other kindsof abuse and, you know, and I
use abuse in the verygeneralized terms. There's a lot
of gradations of abuse, but it'sjust kind of impact.
It's the way that life hasimpacted me. I I love the

(46:12):
phrase, the kaleidoscopicimprint of life upon the fabric
of mind. I I just I love thatphrase because we've all got
this different way that we'veabsorbed like a sponge all of
the experiences in our life, andthe way that I've absorbed the
process. This is that I alwayskinda feel like I'm not enough,
like I I'm not quite worthy. Youknow, I wonder where that would

(46:34):
come from, that I that I haven'tdone enough to really be worthy
until I'm stand at the judgmentbar of God and I'm told you're
worthy.
You know, like, whatever thosethings that were reinforced over
and over and over again, I carrythat with me, and I haven't
always known that I was carryingthat with me. This isn't
something that I consciouslychose as a way to, like, imprint
on myself. It just it's there.And what's been helpful to me is

(47:02):
I've just become more aware ofmy own internal biases and that
they aren't a defect. It's notthat there's something wrong
with me and I should bedifferent.
It's that my brain is doingexactly what it's evolved to do,
to make sense of the worldthrough my felt responses in it.
And those felt responses shapethe meaning that I attach to

(47:22):
everything. So when you say thatthere's nothing more to say,
what I hear is that there'snothing more to say officially
in the realm of physics, but,you know, nothing that could be
publishable, nothingquantifiable. It wouldn't stand
up to a peer review. But I thinkthere's still plenty more to
explore and plenty more to feelthrough because if

(47:43):
consciousness, if feltexperience is part of what we're
made of, then we're never donetalking about it.
And we don't need new math toask, what's shaping the meaning
that I'm making right now.What's my nervous system
responding to that I haven'tconsciously noticed yet? What am
I feeling before I even knowthat I'm feeling it? And that's

(48:03):
what I think therapy is, andthat's what I think healing is.
So that when I have a thoughtthat comes up and I'm aware, oh,
wait.
I I tend to slant towards thedebit thing. I can look at it,
and I can then ask myself, isthis thought coming up really
true? Is it really consideringall the factors, or is this part
of my unconscious automaticprocessing that if I just,

(48:26):
without thinking about it, justpass it along and I'm just like
a relay in the world, what am Iputting out there that what
impact it might have on somebodybecause I'm feeling like I have
to defend myself or, you know,I'm being slighted in some way
or, you know, like, and then Iget aggressive and I get snarky
and, you know, and just kind ofperpetuate patterns that I'd

(48:48):
rather heal. So, anyway, that'swhat I had to say about that.

Wren (48:53):
The question about what consciousness is is a really
open ended question and one thatis fun to speculate on kind of
endlessly. And I think thatthat's what, you know, is
exciting, or or something thatyou've meditated on quite a lot.

(49:19):
But you said in your responsesome things, that I think maybe
reveal a more interestingquestion. Like, when you were
saying, if you have a worldviewthat a materialist worldview,

(49:41):
that consciousness doesn'tmatter, that, there are things
that are not conscious. It canfoster ideas that, because other

(50:02):
things are not conscious, maybethere's people who aren't
conscious or people who aren'tanyways, you're kinda saying
that having a materialistworldview or or this
understanding, that things areare not conscious.

(50:30):
It can kinda lead to a type ofnihilism where you stop caring
about other people and you onlycare about the stuff that is
interesting to you, I guess, orsomething like that. And I think
that that is, it reminds me alot of the scriptures when in

(50:57):
Doctrine and Covenants orsomething, when they're talking
about how when people reject thegospel, they become a law unto
themselves. And I like thatscripture because I really do
feel like I am Allah untomyself. That is to say, I don't

(51:19):
feel like my beliefs that humansare valuable or, like,
basically, my belief that humanshave inalienable human rights.
Right?
If we take it back to thefounding of our country, The
United States, Founding Fathersframed the constitution with the

(51:44):
belief that humans are endowedby their creator with
inalienable human rights orinalienable rights. And for
them, the rights of humans camefrom a creator. But for me, I
don't believe in a creator. Ibelieve human rights are innate

(52:09):
unto themselves, that you don'tneed a creator to know that
humans have rights. Andsimilarly, I don't need a higher
order to the universe or adeeper explanation for what
consciousness is to believe thathumans are important.

(52:32):
Right? Like, consciously makethe decision that all humans are
important, not because of somebelief in harmonious universe or

(52:52):
that, you know, every snowflakeis special, but because I choose
to be and so it's my law. It's alaw that I have made unto myself
that I choose to value otherpeople. And I choose to believe
that other people have rights.And I choose to believe that

(53:21):
there is good in the world and Iwant to do good.
That morality and that sense ofjustice, you know, is is a
decision that I've made. And Idon't I don't need to justify

(53:46):
it. I don't need to rationalizewhy it's important, because it
is to me, and that's that's howI live my life these days, I
suppose. Anyways, I don't knowwhat you think about that.

Glenn (54:04):
Alright. And thank you so much for sharing that, Ren. I'm
happy to tell you what I thinkabout it because I I think it
plays perfectly into what we'vebeen discussing here, what I've
been thinking about, how ourchoices, our morality, and our
values are influenced by theseunderlying mechanisms. As I was

(54:27):
listening to what you're saying,I noticed a strong emphasis in
your response about the absenceof a creator, which kinda
reminded me of that Jesussmuggling concept. You know?
And I wanna clarify that, yeah,while I do believe in a creator,
quote, unquote, I'm not here totry to argue about beliefs being

(54:47):
right or wrong or to try andconvince you of, you know, like,
you're seeing it wrong. My wayof seeing it's right. Because,
mean, I think, basically,everybody has an incomplete view
of things, like, severelyincomplete. But when I'm
speaking of a creator, thecreator that I believe in, I'm
really referring to the universeitself. A system that's been

(55:09):
creating and evolving since thebig bang or perhaps even through
multiple big bangs as somerecent theory suggest.
So this ongoing process ofcreation which led to the
formation of solar systems andplanets and eventually life
forms capable of self awarenessand reflection. In this view,
the creator isn't a singleentity with a specific plan

(55:31):
who's gonna punish you if youdeviate from it, but it's rather
the sum of countlessinteractions and relationships
among sentient feelingcomponents of the universe. And
these interactions give rise topatterns and systems that
support life and consciousness.And to me, this perspective ties
beautifully into the idea ofinalienable rights. Rights that

(55:53):
emerge from time tested ways ofbeing and relating that have
proven beneficial for thecontinuation and flourishing of
life.
For instance, the stableconditions on earth such as its
distance from the sun and itsaxial tilt have allowed complex
life to develop. Theseconditions are not random.
They're part of a larger patternof creation that endows us with

(56:14):
the right to exist, to think,and to feel. And it creates and
it shapes us our our meaningmaking abilities. Like, this
recent neuroscience researchshowed how our brains process
consciousness.
It's a new discovery that waspublished in Nature and talking
about the thalamus, which isthis deep brain structure, and

(56:37):
it plays a crucial role infiltering okay. It's called the
gateway, like filtering whichthoughts we become aware of and
which ones don't. To me, this islike the biological,
neurological underpinnings ofconfirmation bias or even if
you're talking about beliefshaping reality and, however, if

(56:58):
you wanna call it magical or woowoo or whatever, like, I think
that there are theseneurological constraints that
unconsciously, this thalamus, itlets in certain things and it
keeps things out. So thisdiscovery emphasizes that our
conscious experiences aren'tjust passive occurrences, but

(57:21):
they're actively regulated byour brain's structures. It's
what Aneel Seth calls acontrolled hallucination, and,
I'm fascinated by Anil Seth'swork.
He he's somebody that AnikaHarris interviews as well. And
all of this aligns with myexperience as a therapist where

(57:42):
I see how unconscious processesshape our perceptions and
behaviors because, you know,like me recognizing that I'm
always in the red, you know,like, this isn't a conscious
choice, but it's a patternthat's formed by my past
experiences, and then Iinternalize that. And so if I
can understand that thesefeelings are rooted in adaptive

(58:03):
responses rather than personalfailings, it's it's just more
empowering that way. I thinkpart of it is calming me down so
I'm not so worked up in thisfight or flight, and I can be
more in my parasympatheticnervous system, that rest and
replenish and nurturing modewhere I have greater access to

(58:23):
this metacognitive ability toreflect and be aware and to
think about what it is that Ithink and to feel about what it
is that I feel. So, anyway,thanks, Ren.
Thanks for spending the time asyou're recovering from your
surgery to reflect on theseideas with me and to kinda share

(58:46):
this back and forth, thislearning out loud experience.
And, yeah, Cool.

Wren (58:55):
I just wanted to give a quick response to what you'd
said. I mean, you know, I did goto a pretty huge party school.

The Dodo Man (59:05):
You know, I I read a couple of books and I've been
to a pretty good school. And I'dlike to think that your respect
for me would be enough to knowthat this man doesn't seem like
a dodo.

Wren (59:16):
A pretty huge party school. And I I just think it's
maybe interesting that maybe didyou never think that all of my
physics cohort people didn't getloaded on the weekends and talk
about Okay. What really even isthe universe, man?

Glenn (59:37):
That means that our whole solar system could be like one
tiny atom in the fingernail ofsome other giant being. Oh, this

Wren (59:51):
is too much.

Glenn (59:53):
That means that one tiny atom in my fingernail could be
be one little tiny universe.What are the universe? Could I
buy some pot from you?

Wren (01:00:13):
But anyways, thanks for the response. And I feel you
don't have to respond to this ifyou don't want to. It's no big
deal. It's been fun talking. ButI'll talk to you later, and I
hope you have a great week.
Oh, WrestleMania was lastweekend, the last two days. It
was really great. I don't knowif you got caught it, but I

(01:00:37):
mean, it wasn't as good as lastyear's WrestleMania, but it was
pretty good. Joe Hendrie cameout to fight Randy Orton. That
was amazing.
Amazing moment. Becky Lynch cameback. She's the man. It's always
good to see Becky Lynch. Thatwas a great moment.
But yeah. John Cena, what a whata douche. Can you believe it?

(01:00:57):
Yeah. Anyway, talk to you later.
Thank you for listening toImprints on Thrones. Imprints on
Thrones.