The Research That Rethinks Neuroscience & Biology | Dr. Bernardo Kastrup

Morphogenesis—the developmental process by which organisms form their shape—is governed by macrolevel imminent organizing principles in nature, which may be archetypal templates that inform the structure of life independent of and prior to genetic expression.

“there are macrolevel imminent organizing principles in nature that define morphagenesis...there may be archetypal templates in nature if you want to call it that way that inform the form of life. In other words that in inform life”

The scientific and metaphysical discussions in foundations of physics are reaching a point where a hypothesis about the noumena (the underlying reality beyond measurement) is necessary to proceed, because the standard assumption that the physical and the noumenal are identical creates paradoxes in quantum mechanics.

“Foundations of physics are reaching a point where a hypothesis about what the numinal is is the only way forward. Otherwise, we think the numinal and the physical are the same thing. Yeah. And therefore physical stuff is the only thing that can be measured. But physical stuff only appear after measurement.”

Artificial neural networks used in AI (like those in GPT) are vastly oversimplified compared to biological neural networks; they use binary activation (neuron fires or not) whereas biological neurons operate on continuous analog potentials; biological neurons have tens of thousands of synapses each carrying analog information, while artificial neural networks cannot approach this complexity.

“A neuron...the axon of the neuron...that output is binary. It's either zero or one. The neuron is either firing or not firing. That's not how things actually work. A neuron goes through a continuous continuous levels of of potentials...those potentials that are not zero or one but everything in between they have cause effectiveness as well.”

IIT has practical resolution limitations: it is only as good as the data resolution fed into it; coarse resolution data (functional MRI) gives coarse answers; very high resolution data (single electrode measuring one axon) has poor spatial coverage because you cannot implant electrodes everywhere; ideal IIT would measure at the microtubule level but current technology cannot.

“IIT the practical limitation of IIT is that IIT is only as good as the resolution of the data you feed it...you get an answer...just as good as the poor resolution of the data you fed it with...you can implant mic tiny needles inside your brain...but how many axons can you measure that way? It's one in a million because you can't put needles everywhere.”

Analytic idealism is the philosophical framework that the universe is fundamentally conscious—composed of one field of subjectivity or one mind—and everything else, including physical matter, is the appearance or expression of that fundamental consciousness.

“I'm an analytic idealist I reduce everything to one field of subjectivity, one mind. I think everything can be explained in terms of the patterns of excitation of this one mind, this one field of subjectivity. All of nature can be explained in terms of that. That means that ultimately everything is actually one.”

IIT is currently the dominant theory of consciousness in neuroscience alongside global workspace theory, and in a recent adversarial collaboration where proponents of both theories agreed on an experiment to distinguish them beforehand, IIT won that experiment, increasing its dominance and prompting Global Workspace Theory proponents to dismiss IIT as pseudoscientific.

“there are two uh sort of dominant theories of consciousness in neuroscience today. That's global workspace theory and IIT and uh IIT is superior um not only in terms of how far along they are...they they are miles ahead of global workspace theory...There has also been a recent u adversarial collaboration in which representatives from both theories agreed beforehand on an experiment that could distinguish the two and I won that.”

Stuart Hameroff's hypothesis posits that microtubules within neurons can sustain coherent quantum states despite the brain being hot and wet, and recent evidence suggests this is possible and that quantum coherence can extend macroscopically across many neurons, dramatically increasing integrated information beyond what classical synaptic models predict.

“there has been evidence that a hypothesis put forward by Stuart Hamarov many years ago that um the microtubules which are basically the skeleton of a cell even a neuron um those microtubules have a kind of a crystalline structure that can sustain u um quantum states coherent quantum states and people ignored that or poo pooed that for a long time because the brain is wet and hot and you can't preserve a coherent state uh in in an environment like that. But new evidence suggests that that's precisely what happened that the microtubules can sustain uh coherence even over macroscopic distances encompassing many neurons.”

Analytic idealism holds that reality is fundamentally one field of subjectivity, one mind; all of nature can be explained in terms of patterns of excitation of this single unified consciousness; dissociation is the active or spontaneous process that creates the illusion of multiplicity and separateness.

“I'm an analytic idealist I reduce everything to one field of subjectivity, one mind. I think everything can be explained in terms of the patterns of excitation of this one mind, this one field of subjectivity. All of nature can be explained in terms of that. That means that ultimately everything is actually one.”

Global Workspace Theory (GWT) and IIT are the two dominant theories of consciousness in neuroscience; IIT is superior because it is further developed, has more precise predictions, is better instrumented, and won an adversarial collaboration designed to distinguish the two theories.

“There are two uh sort of dominant theories of consciousness in neuroscience today. That's global workspace theory and IIT and uh IIT is superior um not only in terms of how far along they are uh in instrumenting the theory...they they are miles ahead of global workspace theory...there has also been a recent u adversarial collaboration in which representatives from both theories agreed beforehand on an experiment that could distinguish the two and I won that.”

Critics of IIT who claim it is pseudoscience because it starts from introspectively-derived qualities of consciousness rather than purely external observations are themselves employing ad hominem arguments that signal desperation, since any theory of consciousness must start by describing what consciousness actually is.

“IIT starts from the qualities of experience that we can discern introspectively, which is incredibly natural. If you want to explain consciousness, you need to first describe what it is that you're trying to explain. You need to start with the thing that you're trying to account for... But no, but according to the letter, it's pseudo science because it starts from what consciousness looks like from from introspection.”

The five axioms of IIT are intuitive, particularly three of them; IIT postulates that conscious systems always try to integrate as much information as possible, which is empirically true from introspection—we always experience unitary consciousness, not fragmented unless dissociation occurs.

“There are five simple axioms which are incredibly intuitive at least three of them are...there is a theoretical um there's theoretical tooling built yeah to substantiate IIT that allows us...to calculate what that structure will look like...it postulates that it will always try to integrate as much information as possible which is empirically true from an introspective perspective.”

Autopsy studies of people who died in traffic accidents found that approximately 50% of people across all ages and health statuses had minor cancer tumors, suggesting that humans continuously develop small cancers throughout life that remain benign due to intact holistic organizing principles.

“they did the autopsies in people who died in traffic accidents which give you a completely unbiased sample of the population because everybody dies in traffic accidents young and old healthy and unhealthy you know of all ethnicities. So they did autopsies in those bodies and about 50% of people irrespective of age anything else totally unbiased about 50% of people had minor cancer tumors irrespective of age”

According to Integrated Information Theory, consciousness emerges from or correlates with systems that maximize integrated information—the unification of diverse information into a coherent, irreducible whole—and dissociation occurs when a system optimizes integrated information by shedding parts that are diluting rather than contributing to total integration.

“I reduce everything to one field of subjectivity, one mind...You need an active process to stop that from recognizing itself as one...A dissociative process. It may be an actively enforced process in the case of life. It may be a spontaneous process which is what IIT predicts. Integrated information theory predicts that sometimes a unified psychic complex will integrate more information if it sheds off some parts of it.”

Association is the fundamental force in nature; the natural direction of things is associative because that is the fundamental nature of things, and dissociation is the active or spontaneous process that must happen to create separation and individuation.

“association is the the fundamental force in nature... the natural direction of things is associative because that's the fundamental nature of things. That's how things are relates to entropy”

Recent evidence suggests Stuart Hameroff's hypothesis may be correct: microtubules in cells (cellular skeletons) have crystalline structure that can sustain coherent quantum states even in the wet, hot brain; if true, the integrated information in the brain extends far beyond synapses to quantum coherence across many neurons.

“There has been evidence that a hypothesis put forward by Stuart Hamarov many years ago that um the microtubules...those microtubules have a kind of a crystalline structure that can sustain u um quantum states coherent quantum states...new evidence suggests that that's precisely what happened that the microtubules can sustain uh coherence even over macroscopic distances encompassing many neurons.”

The difference between consciousness and intelligence as distinct axes (revealed by IIT and discussed in this conversation) helps distinguish fact from fiction in AI consciousness claims, which is ethically and socially important because it affects how we understand ourselves and our relationship to technology.

“When people start sort of attributing or projecting consciousness onto AI, we need a scientific theory that can help us sort of distinguish fact from fiction. That's what I find really important sort of ethically and society.”

During psychedelic experiences like DMT, the dissociative boundary between the individual self and the universal consciousness becomes porous, allowing access to aspects of consciousness beyond the individual brain's integrated information—experiences reported as 'oneness with the universe' reflect access to the noumenal realm beyond the appearance of the brain.

“I think um psychedelic experiences which correlate with vastly reduced brain activity um you can't expect to find correlates of the psychedelic experience in patterns of brain activity. It's a limited appearance. It's an appearance of the dissociation. And my hypothesis is that in during psychedelic experiences the dissociative boundary becomes porous and you reach beyond it and you will not find that beyond in the appearance of the dissociation.”

IIT is the first scientific theory to bridge the noumenal (things as they are in themselves, the inner subjective realm) and the phenomenal (things as they appear to us, the physical measurements): it correlates subjective experience reports with brain activity measurements, building a mathematical bridge between first-person consciousness and third-person neuroscience.

“I've called sort of also in in praise of IIT that this might be the first theory of the numina. Which is quite a big thing to say Bernardo because it it puts it sort of beyond physics in a sense...So what IIT does as a scientific theory which has metaphysical implications...It was developed based on science. It so happens that it may have metaphysical implications but it was not driven by metaphysics...what IIT does is it correlates the two sides of the equation. We have we can we have inner experience through introspection...and we have measurements of brain activity...to build a bjective function that links the two.”

IIT is the first scientific theory of the noumenal (things as they are in themselves), not just the phenomenal (things as they appear); it builds a bridge between subjective experience (known through introspection) and objective measurements (brain activity), allowing inference of consciousness from brain data and vice versa.

“I've called sort of also in in praise of IIT that this might be the first theory of the numina. Which is quite a big thing to say...it correlates the two sides of the equation...subjective reports from introspection...and measurements of brain activity...to build a bridge between these two sides.”

Castup sees private consciousness as eminently associated with biology and metabolism (which is unique to life), whereas he cannot refute that a computer might have consciousness but sees no good reason to think so, treating conscious inner life as top-down (dissociated from one universal mind) rather than bottom-up (emerging from silicon).

“I see private consciousness like human beings have like living beings have. I see that as eminently associated with biology. And I don't I cannot refute that a computer may have private consciousness. But I don't think we have any good reasons to think that any more than we have good reasons to think that this glass of water has private consciousness.”

Nature tells us through biological boundaries what is actually natural and intuitive: living organisms have a coherent holistic organizing plan; this contradicts human intuitions because human culture has replaced reality with discourse and narratives for the past 30,000 years, causing our intuitions to drift from nature toward self-made stories.

“That's what nature is telling us what is actually natural...Living organisms have a coherent associated holistic organizing plan...and this is nature telling us what is actually natural and intuitive and that contradicts our intuitions because our intuitions are born out of culture not nature.”

Classical von Neumann digital computer architecture necessarily keeps integrated information low because successful engineering design requires managing complexity through subsystems with clear interfaces, and this modular design principle—which is essential for human cognitive tractability—precludes high integrated information, meaning ChatGPT and other current AI systems cannot be conscious by IIT measures.

“Key in design is to manage complexity through subsystems, through subblocks and clear interfaces. It turns out that if you actually design like that, which is the only way you can have a successful design, you're always keeping five low. That's so funny.”

Cancer can be understood as a form of dissociation at the level of the body's holistic mental life, where cells that should remain integrated into the body's unified goal-structure become dissociated and pursue their own replication independently, analogous to dissociative identity disorder in consciousness.

“when cancer cells no longer are looking at the conductor...They start doing their own thing...they are dissociated from the rest of the body plan...when part of your mental inner life becomes dissociated from the rest of it...If cancer is when a dissociation happens. That's my hypothesis.”

Cancer can be understood as internal dissociation—when part of the body's mental/cognitive inner life becomes dissociated from the rest, cells lose connection to the organism's coherent body plan and begin pursuing their own goals, analogous to dissociative identity disorder where multiple personalities lose connection to the host consciousness.

“Cancer is an internal dissociation. It's when part of your mental inner life becomes dissociated from the rest of it...Cancer cells forgot the organism. They think of themselves as a single cell again...they don't care about it. It's your outside. It's not sort of...you grow as a tumor because you want to extend your empire.”

Physical measurements (brain scans) can only give incomplete information about consciousness because physical measurements are appearances, not reality: just as you cannot see everything about a person from their appearance, brain activity need not reveal everything about inner experience, leaving room for aspects of consciousness (like psychedelic experiences) that correlate with minimal brain activity.

“physical stuff is appearance. Yeah. So, my patterns of brain brain activity are physical and they are merely the appearance of my conscious in their life...appearances don't need to be complete. You have an appearance of me right now. You don't see what's under my clothes. You don't see the details of my metabolism...An appearance does reveal important stuff...But not everything.”

Michael Levin uses the language of 'cognitive glue' to describe bioelectric fields—they allow cells to cognitively understand and cooperate with one another, and when this cognitive bridge breaks down through dissociation, cells cease to obey the body plan.

“Michael uses the language of cognitive glue. So he speaks of these fields as the cognitive glue. It's a very idealist terminology. And um uh so um it's the cognitive glue that allows the cells to sort of cognitively understand each other and cooperate cognitively. Um and uh when there is a cognitive dissociation when they cannot cognitively bridge that gap between themselves then on the one side of dissociation they go off on their own.”

The natural boundaries and degrees of association we observe in nature reflect something intrinsic and intuitive that contradicts our modern cultural intuitions, which have drifted from nature toward self-made narratives and discourse for the past 30,000 years.

“Nature is telling us what is actually natural and intuitive and that contradicts our intuitions because our intuitions are born out of culture not nature... We replace reality with discourse and narratives and language. So our natural intuitions of plausibility drift away from nature towards self-made stuff, stories.”

Castup comes from computer engineering and Levin from biology, yet Castup gives biology more fundamental status than Levin does, while Levin gives computers more fundamental status than Castup does, suggesting they are projecting their professional domains onto their theories and crossing paths in unexpected ways.

“We come from the two opposite extremes of this spectrum. I come from computer engineering and computer science. He comes from biology. But curiously, I give biology a more fundamental role than he does and he gives computers a more fundamental role than I do, which is where we sort of cross each other.”

Castup takes a top-down view of life: all life originates as one zygote (fertilized egg) that creates internal structure fractally by applying the cell template to itself, growing into multicellular organisms while remaining fundamentally holistic from inception; in contrast, Levin takes a bottom-up view where cells aggregate and cohere to form complex organisms.

“My impression is that he tends to think more bottom up...how cells as elementary building blocks come together and subsume themselves into a greater organism...I tend to have a more top-down view of life. I don't see life as an aggregate of cells. I see life all life as the original zygot the original fertilized egg that all life always was.”

IIT is the only candidate theory of consciousness currently available; if we abandon IIT because it cannot explain everything, we have no scientific framework at all; therefore, IIT is the best game in town for consciousness science despite its limitations.

“We think the numinal and the physical are the same thing...And therefore physical stuff is the only thing that can be measured. But physical stuff only appear after measurement...So you have to have a theory of the numinal to proceed in physics. And guess what? The only game in town in town is it's IIT.”

We are not far from being able to turn every form of cancer into a chronic illness that a person has for the rest of their life but will not kill them, similar to allergies, by learning to maintain bioelectric field coherence in the presence of cancerous cells.

“I think we are not far from figuring out how to cure all forms of cancer um not not cure let me rephrase it we are not far from turning every form of cancer into a chronic illness, an illness you have for the rest of your life but will not kill you. Like allergies”

Thinking of AI systems as conscious—attributing minds to mechanisms—leads to a catastrophic misunderstanding of human nature: if we think AI is conscious like us, then we implicitly think of ourselves as mere mechanisms, which is a metaphysical disaster for human self-understanding and dignity.

“AI is a great opportunity and a great threat because if we think AI is conscious like we are then we think of ourselves as mechanisms. Yeah. Yeah. And that is a catastrophe. Yeah.”

Despite Castrup coming from computer engineering (bottom-up systems thinking) and Levin coming from biology (top-down organism thinking), they have adopted each other's traditional approaches—a curious philosophical reversal suggesting that disciplinary training sometimes inverts rather than confirms naive intuitions.

“We come from the two opposite extremes of this spectrum. I come from computer engineering and computer science. He comes from biology. Yeah. But curiously, I give biology a more fundamental role than he does and he gives computers a more fundamental role than I do, which is where we sort of cross each other, right?”

Current academic discussions about AI ethics are insufficiently urgent given the background of global suffering (starvation, disease); prioritizing 'ethical treatment of AI' over human welfare is morally absurd until human consciousness is properly respected.

“All these academic discussions popping up now out of the woodwork the ethics about how to deal with AI... I find it insulting. No, there's still children starving. And you're telling me how I should ethically treat AI, a mechanism, an abacus.”

We need a scientific theory that can help distinguish fact from fiction regarding AI consciousness, because this distinction is ethically crucial: if we falsely believe AI is conscious like we are, we will think of ourselves as mere mechanisms, which is a catastrophe.

“We need a scientific theory that can help us sort of distinguish fact from fiction. That's what I find really important sort of ethically and society...if we think AI is conscious like we are then we think of ourselves as mechanisms. Yeah. Yeah. And that is a catastrophe.”

Defenders of IIT and critics of unfounded AI consciousness attribution need to establish a strategic presence within the AI industry and community to prevent metaphysical misconceptions from corrupting public understanding and policy.

“People like me and Kristoff and a few others whose names, you know, um, we need to create a beach head for ourselves in AI because that's where the metaphysical discussion is going to go. It's going to go under the umbrella of AI. Yeah. And if you don't have a presence in in AI that forces people to listen to what you have to say, um we may go to hell in a hand basket.”

Quantum computers suffer from the same low-integration problem as classical digital computers because quantum gates only connect a few qubits at a time while qubits must remain isolated in superposition, making quantum computers even worse at integration than digital computers.

“And the same will go for quantum computers... the integration between those cubits... is little the quantum gates only bring a few cubits together. The cubits are supposed to be completely separate in order to maintain their superposition state... they're completely isolated. That's the difficulty in creating a quantum computer... so a quantum computer is even worse... they integrate even less stuff.”

Physical patterns of brain activity are an incomplete appearance of consciousness; they do not need to tell the full story of inner experience, just as a photograph of a person does not reveal what's under their clothes or all their internal states; psychedelic experiences correlating with reduced brain activity support this—the richer consciousness may extend beyond what brain scans can measure.

“Physical stuff is appearance...my patterns of brain activity are physical and they are merely the appearance of my conscious inner life...appearances don't need to be complete...An appearance of me right now. You don't see what's under my clothes. You don't see the details of my metabolism.”

During psychedelic experiences, dissociative boundaries become porous, allowing consciousness to reach beyond the normal boundary of the dissociated self; you experience expanded consciousness because you are literally accessing consciousness that was previously dissociated from your normal mental boundary.

“My hypothesis is that in during psychedelic experiences the dissociative boundary becomes porous and you reach beyond it and you will not find that beyond in the appearance of the dissociation.”

Essentia Foundation's core mission is to influence metaphysical discourse, and because that discourse is now moving into the domain of AI (questions about AI consciousness, mind uploading, machine intelligence), Essentia founders like Bernardo Kastrup must develop a for-profit AI hardware company to maintain intellectual legitimacy in that conversation, otherwise philosophers and idealists will be dismissed as not understanding AI technology.

“one of our directors called Avert. pulled me to the side one day after a board meeting and he said you know AI is exploding and all this conversation about you know is AI conscious or not...he thought this is how the metaphysical discussion in which we play which we were founded to influence as essential foundation this is where that metaphysical discussion is going...he looked at me and said you have always done multiple things...you start something in the area of AI”

Bernardo Kastrup obtained a second PhD in philosophy (completed 2019) after earning a PhD in computer engineering (2001) specifically because critics challenged him on not having credentials in philosophy—he decided this was a valid criticism and spent three years publishing in peer-reviewed mainstream philosophy journals before pursuing the second PhD, demonstrating his pattern of taking ad hominem criticism seriously and earning legitimacy in whatever domain he enters.

“I got a second PhD because years ago somebody said, 'Why should I listen to you?' Your PhD in computer engineering. What do you know about philosophy? It's an ad hominant attack, but I think some ad hominins are valid. I am not against all ad hominins. So, I thought this is a good ad hominant. I take it to heart. Two people said that. Why should I listen to you? You're PhD in computer engineering and you're doing philosophy now. Why should I listen to you? And I thought, okay, I spent three years writing technical papers in philosophy in main uh uh uh mainstream journals, peer-reviewed journals, and then I got my second PhD.”

Castup chose to focus Synthetics on hardware rather than software because only hardware states actually exist; software is pure abstraction and pattern, so to have real presence in AI technology, one must deal with the physical substrate.

“We will do hardware not software hardware because hardware is what exists right software is a pattern of information in hardware right it's it's what drives hardware but what is actually happening is always hardware only hardware states exist. Software is an abstraction that they create. Only hardware states exist. There is nothing to a computer but hardware and its states.”

Castrup distinguishes between hardware and software by arguing that hardware is what actually exists (physical states of matter and energy), while software is pure abstraction—a pattern imposed upon and interpreted from hardware; therefore, to understand what a computer truly is and what consciousness in systems looks like requires studying hardware, not software abstractions.

“We will do hardware not software hardware because hardware is what exists right software is a pattern of information in hardware right it's it's what drives hardware but what is actually happening is always hardware only hardware states exist. Software is an abstraction that they create.”

Castup has a history of going to considerable length to establish credibility when criticized; after someone challenged his authority to do philosophy with only a computer science PhD, he spent three years writing technical papers in philosophy and earned a second PhD in philosophy to respond to this ad hominem challenge.

“I got a second PhD because years ago somebody said 'Why should I listen to you? Your PhD in computer engineering. What do you know about philosophy?'...I thought this is a good ad hominant. I take it to heart. Two people said that...And I thought, okay, I spent three years writing technical papers in philosophy in main uh uh uh mainstream journals, peer-reviewed journals, and then I got my second PhD.”

Levin said he is 'open to the idea' that the weather might be conscious or an intelligent system and would only want tests to determine if it can solve problems in its solution space, showing he does not restrict consciousness or intelligence to biological systems.

“He said, 'I'm open to the idea... of the weather being sort of conscious or as an intelligent system. I just wouldn't have a way now to test it. So, we should just test it, you know, come up with tests to see if it can solve problems.'”

IIT's critics dismiss it as pseudoscientific because it starts from introspective phenomenology (the structure of conscious experience) rather than from physical reductionism, but this criticism is illogical: if you want to explain consciousness, you must start by describing what consciousness is before you can explain it.

“Why? Because IIIT starts from the qualities of experience that we can discern introspectively, which is incredibly natural. If you want to explain consciousness, you need to first describe what it is that you're trying to explain. You need to start with the thing that you're trying to account for. So you account for that and not something else. But no, but according to the letter, it's pseudo science because it starts from what consciousness looks like from from introspection.”

Michael Levin has a more bottom-up view of life whereas Bernardo Kastrup has a top-down view: Levin sees cells as elementary building blocks that subsume themselves into larger organisms, while Kastrup sees all life as originating from one zygote that creates internal structure fractally, meaning life is holistic from the beginning and never ceases to be holistic.

“my impression is that he tends to think more bottom up. You know how how do cells as elementary building blocks come together and subsume themselves into a greater organism...I I tend to have a more top- down view of life. I don't see life as an aggregate of cells. I see life all life as the original zygot the original fertilized egg that all life always was. And I see that zygote just creating internal structure in a fractal way.”

Castup gives consciousness and phenomenal experience primary role in his framework and views it as eminently associated with biology and metabolism; he cannot refute that computers might have consciousness but sees no good reasons to believe they do, and does not regard an inanimate glass of water as a discrete entity worthy of consciousness claims.

“I see private consciousness like human beings have like living beings have. I see that as eminently associated with biology. Um and I don't I cannot refute that a computer may have private consciousness. But I don't think we have any good reasons to think that any more than we have good reasons to think that this glass of water has private consciousness.”

Castup founded Syntactics (an AI hardware company) to establish a credible presence in AI development so that his philosophical and scientific critiques of AI consciousness cannot be dismissed as coming from someone 'outdated' or uninvolved in cutting-edge technology.

“If that discussion moves under AI but we don't have a foothold in AI. We are looking into AI from the outside. Then people can always say, well, what do these philosophers know about AI?...He's outdated. If he says it's not conscious, we can't take seriously because he doesn't know...So we figured fine then we get involved.”