What Does It Mean to Be Alive? R' Steven Gotlib on Consciousness and the Soul

Following our episode on death and the afterlife, Rabbi David Silverstein welcomes Rabbi Steven Gotlib back to the podcast for the flip side of that question: what does it actually mean to be alive? More specifically, why do we have conscious experience at all?

They start with what philosophers call the “hard problem of consciousness” and the main secular attempts to solve it. Maybe consciousness emerges once a system is complex enough. Maybe it’s an illusion. Or maybe, as panpsychists argue, consciousness runs through all of reality. From there, they turn to Jewish sources: God breathing life into Adam in Bereishit, the Tanya’s claim that our separateness from God is only apparent, Rav Kook’s idea that the world exists within God, and the Rambam’s view of prophecy as a natural capacity that only a few are allowed to reach. They close with AI. If a machine can imitate a conscious mind convincingly, what separates it from us, and where does the soul fit in?

About the Guest: Rabbi Steven Gotlib is a pulpit rabbi serving a diverse Jewish community in Philadelphia. A graduate of the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary (RIETS) at Yeshiva University, he is a frequent contributor to The Lehrhaus, 18Forty, and writes regularly on his personal Substack.

AMA: In an upcoming episode, R' David will respond to listener questions! Submit them to be considered here: https://forms.gle/EHknAEyZUVFXARWJ7

Chapters:
01:11 From Death to the Hard Problem of Consciousness
09:22 Materialist Answers: Emergence and Illusion
23:10 Panpsychism: Is Consciousness Everywhere?
28:27 Bereishit: Is the Soul Consciousness?
33:40 The Tanya: Is Separateness from God an Illusion?
39:39 Rav Kook and Panentheism
43:35 The Rambam's View
47:18 AI, Consciousness, and the Soul
54:26 Where Science, Philosophy, and Religion Meet

Creators and Guests

Host

Rav David Silverstein

Rabbi David Silverstein is the Sgan (Assistant) Rosh Yeshiva at Yeshivat Orayta in Jerusalem, and previously served as the Director of the Overseas Program at Yeshivat Hesder, Petach Tikva. Originally from New Jersey, Rabbi Silverstein lives with his wife and four children in Modiin, Israel.

What is The Curious Jew?

Judaism is a civilization built on big ideas—about God, morality, community, purpose, and what it means to live a meaningful life. But in a rapidly changing world, how do these timeless concepts speak to our modern reality?

The Curious Jew is a forum for thoughtful conversation, spirited debate, and intellectual exploration of Judaism’s most enduring questions and contemporary challenges. Through engaging discussions with leading rabbis, scholars, authors, and communal figures, we go beyond the surface to examine the core ideas shaping the Jewish future.

Hosted by Rabbi David Silverstein and produced by Yeshivat Orayta, our goal is not simply to provide easy answers, but to cultivate curiosity, challenge assumptions, and inspire a more thoughtful, self-aware, and committed Judaism for the twenty-first century.

Whether you're deeply learned in Torah text or just beginning your intellectual journey, The Curious Jew invites you to join the conversation. New episodes drop bi-weekly.

Questions? Feedback? Have a topic you'd like to hear discussed? Let us know: [e-mail]

Intro music by Mykola Odnoroh.

R' Steven Gotlib: When I do the experiment
of close your eyes for 30 seconds and just

try to think about nothing, and even as
thoughts stop entering your head, there is

still that core sense of me-ness that is
there, even in absence of direct thoughts.

That sense of I am still a self
that is here, that is cognizant,

I'm not convinced that's something
that, AI has or will have.

That, I think that visceral
feeling is where the soul is.

Welcome to The Curious Jew, a podcast
by Yeshivat Orayta, where we challenge

assumptions, explore big ideas, and
think about what it means to live a

Jewish life in the twenty-first century.

Rabbi David Silverstein: Hello, everyone.

Welcome back to another episode
of the Curious Jew , brought

to you by Yeshivat Oraita.

This is David Silverman, and today I
have the pleasure of welcoming back

to the podcast Rabbi Steven Gotlib.

Steven, thank you so much for
coming back on the Curious Jew

. R' Steven Gotlib: My pleasure.

Great to be here as always

Rabbi David Silverstein: Before we
start talking about today's topic,

I wanna provide a brief introduction
as to what's motivating me to talk

specifically about this very abstract
idea, which I'll discuss in one moment.

Our last episode was an
episode talking about death.

We had on Rabbi Jason Weiner from
California, and it was around Yom

Kippur time, and it wasn't talking about
necessarily Halakhic issues relating

to death or about, the relevance of
death for leading a meaningful life.

It was talking about death
in the most literal sense.

What happens when you die?

How did J- Judaism
conceive of the afterlife?

We talked about the issue of life,
near-death experiences, and the

way in which science and different
university settings are now trying

to engage in a serious way with the
question of near-death experience.

And to be honest, I was kinda skeptical
about how that episode was gonna be

received because I feel it's a pretty out
there topic, death isn't exactly number

one on a, the podcast popularity chart.

And I was curious also when you talk
about near-death experiences I find

that people think it's out there, pretty
wacky, doesn't seem very scientific.

So I felt like this is gonna be
potentially a total bomb, but

actually it was the opposite.

We got enormous feedback from all
different types of people who we haven't

heard from in a long time, talking
about how much they appreciate the

podcast, how much they thought that Rabbi
Weiner's insights about his own lived

experience as a senior chaplain, and
also as somebody who's involved in Jewish

theology and Halakha, were particularly
insightful and helpful for them.

So it really s- inspired me to really
appreciate the fact that, people are

interested in talking about, abstract
ideas, some ideas which aren't as popular

or as necessarily engaging on the surface.

And that's why I wanted to have
you on today to talk about I would

say, the corollary to death, right?

In other words, if we assume that
death represents the transition

from this world into the next that
raises a larger question, what

does it mean to be alive, right?

What does it mean to
be alive in this world?

And I think, most of us would agree
that what it means to be alive is

to be a conscious entity, right?

To be conscious, to have subjective
experiences, to feel a sense of me, to

feel like there's a driver, somewhere
situated in between my eyes who's

navigating my life, and that driver is
qualitatively different than the driver in

your head or wherever consciousness rests.

And therefore, what I wanna talk about
today is, the very light question

of the nature of consciousness.

It's like my daughter said to me,
"Where are you going right now?"

And I said, "I'm going to do a
podcast with Steve Gottlieb."

And she said, "About what?"

And I said, "The nature of consciousness."

And she said, "Oh, just a regular
normal, activity for 4:00 p.m.

On a Wednesday."

So anyway, I really do appreciate
you coming to speak about this.

I know you've written about this.

You've been on podcasts about this.

So I really do appreciate your insight.

So before we get into the weeds, maybe
just start by framing a little bit.

Oftentimes it's articulated,
and it was articulated by a, a

well-known philosopher as the hard
problem of consciousness, right?

What exactly is the hard
problem of consciousness?

R' Steven Gotlib: For sure.

So when we think about questions we
ask about how consciousness works,

there's really, I guess this is
the di- dichotomy that's laid out,

there's really two types of questions.

There's soft questions, which are, I
wouldn't quite call them easier questions,

but I would call them, questions that
quite literally have a softer landing.

They're descriptive questions.

They're questions of what, et cetera.

The hard question of consciousness is why
do we have a conscious experience at all?

Philosophers like to talk
about the thought experiment

of philosophical zombies.

One can imagine a world in which
everything is the same as it

is now but conscious experience
is not necessarily there.

Why is it that we have to
have a first-person conscious

experience of the world?

Why does that have to be there?

Why is it there?

And that's really the hard problem
that everything keeps coming back

to in a lot of these discussions.

Rabbi David Silverstein: Maybe if you
could just flesh out a little bit more.

In other words think about it this way.

I remember when I heard you
speak about this one time, you

made an interesting observation.

You said, let's say, for example, you
just tried to think for a minute and

then tried not to have any thoughts, like
you tried to have a thoughtless moment.

So if you think about it,
a thoughtless moment should

just be like you turning off.

It's like you turning off a light, right?

But when you have a thoughtless
moment there still is you, right?

There still is a sense that
like you're there even though

you're not having thoughts.

And maybe if you could just
describe it even more in detail.

I think part of the challenge here
is that ostensibly, especially

if you're a materialist that
we are just neurons, right?

We're just material objects.

So if we're just material objects,
then why would material objects

generate subjective output?

In other words, if we're all the
same, just made of neurons, so then

presumably everybody should be having
exactly the same sort of encounter

with reality, but we're not, right?

So I think you just maybe…

Look, I think the definition here
really is important, and I think that,

for people like us who are very much
in the weeds in these conversations,

these seem, may seem obvious.

But someone told me, I forgot his name,
but there's some consciousness researcher,

like a very famous one who was on Joe
Rogan, and he was trying to explain to Joe

Rogan the hard problem of consciousness,
and Joe Rogan just could not get it.

Like he was like, "I don't get it.

It's just all in the brain."

So in order to avoid the Joe Rogan
problem, maybe we could just spend

another minute or two just to really
delve in, what is this sense of

self, and why is it so problematic
to assume it comes from the brain?

R' Steven Gotlib: Yeah, for sure.

I think you're right.

The way that most people really, cop
it, so to speak, is by experiencing it.

So the experiment that I often do when
I start these things is just take, 30

seconds to just try not to think, and we
don't have to necessarily do that now,

it would take up time, but after the
podcast, I encourage anyone listening,

just put on a timer on your phone for 30
seconds and just close your eyes and try

not to think about anything in particular.

If you do it for long enough,
eventually maybe thoughts will stop

coming, but there's still going
to be that sense that is there.

At some level, we have an
irreducible sense of there is

still something here outside of the
thoughts that are entering my head.

If we think that we're only
materials, so then we're responding

to stimuli that are around us.

In absence of that, as you said, we
should basically just be, on sleep mode.

But we're not on sleep mode.

There is still a sense of
identity that is there.

Ironically, the best person I've seen
describe this is actually the it's like

one of the faces of the "new atheism,"
which is now quite old, Sam Harris.

So he wrote a book called Waking Up
about his experiences in transcendental

meditation, and he talks about this
problem, and actually his wife,

Annaka Harris, is a major thinker when
it comes to these sorts of things.

But yeah, I think that's basically what
the hard problem is that I am me and

have an experience at this irreducible
level, and if that were not the case,

I just wouldn't be, there-- We wouldn't
even have words for it in the way

that we barely have words for this

Rabbi David Silverstein: Yeah, it's
interesting you talk about terminology,

'cause I think the terminology really
captures what you're getting at.

There's the book by a contemporary
public intellectual, Russ Douthat,

called something like Why Be Religious?

And he has a whole
chapter on consciousness.

He thinks that consciousness is an
anchor for taking religion seriously.

But he references something which I
guess is used in academic literature,

which is called qualia, right?

And I feel like it would be
ba'al tashchis if we had a whole

podcast about consciousness,
and we didn't talk about qualia.

But I think the word itself captures
what you're referencing, the sort

of indescribable reality, right?

So so what, what exactly do, contemporary
thinkers or philosophers mean when

they say this qu- thing called qualia?

R' Steven Gotlib: Yeah, so qualia
is, to oversimplify the definition,

the subjective first-person
sense of self that we have.

The ability to say, "What
is this like to me?"

And to have a particular
state of mind is qualia.

And then the question becomes,
what things have qualia?

What things maybe do not have qualia?

Is qualia a spectrum?

That's where a lot of these
questions end up coming to.

But really it's just when we say qualia
in, religious, philosophical, theological

literature when we're talking about
these things, we really just mean

the subjective sense of self that any
particular thing has or does not have

Rabbi David Silverstein: And that's
not even necessarily limited to humans.

In other words, I think there's some

R' Steven Gotlib: not necessarily

Rabbi David Silverstein: an--
write, wrote an article called

What's It Like to Be a Bat, right?

So it's like you're the, the bat or, you
know, for example, you can imagine a dog.

What is exactly the conscious
experience o- of the dog, okay?

So okay, so now that we have a kind
of at least a working definition as to

the hard problem of consciousness, and
I hope to listeners it's clear exactly

why the hard problem is not an easy one
to solve, just working with k- kind of

traditional materialist definitions.

So let's move for a second
to some possible solutions.

Okay, now both of us function
in very Jewish spaces.

We both have semikhah.

We're both rabbis.

So obviously, intuitively, our solution
our sort of natural inclination is

to go towards religious solutions.

Before we talk about religious solutions,
I know you mentioned Sam Harris before.

Let's at least engage for a few minutes
in the world of the materialist,

let's say, for example, you don't
have semikhah from YU, right?

You're just a regular guy who's on
the street, and you've been trained

in the world of university, and you're
a scientific materialist, so you have

this problem of consciousness, right?

So h- how do you deal with it, right?

How do you deal with the
problem of consciousness?

So one possible solution here is what's
called, the emergence solution, right?

So maybe if you could speak for a few
minutes about the emergence solution.

What exactly does it mean for
consciousness to somehow emerge?

R' Steven Gotlib: For sure.

So first of all, we
should just frame this.

When people are talking about
materialism in this context, there's

really two types of materialists.

There's the hardcore, "I am a
philosophical materialist," which

I will discuss as some answers.

But then there's also what we call in
philosophy of science methodological

naturalism, which is that I am
in the context of this laboratory

setting operating under naturalist
assumptions, which is for the sake

of scientific research, I'm not
going to take into account anything

that is literally supernatural above
what we know of the natural laws

of the universe, things like that.

One can also be a metaphysical
naturalist, which is I believe that

there is nothing other than that,
and both of these sides have to try

to reach solutions in this regard.

I'm gonna talk about the
metaphysical naturalists.

What do the people say who do
not think that there is that?

Because as we know, there are many
Frum scientists and philosophers

across fields who are methodological
naturalists in the sense of when I'm

writing my papers and operating in this
world, I'm not writing papers on, how

Hashem is involved in these things.

Though maybe for religious
journals, traditions, something

like that, I am doing that.

But from a metaphysical naturalist,
let's say I am an atheist scientist who's

trying to understand consciousness, what
would my answer be to this question?

And that's, I think, where
these answers kind of arise.

So one, as you mentioned, is the
emergence theory, which is that at

some point consciousness emerges
into being, or, some will say at some

point it evolved into development.

And the question you have to ask is
when on the timeline did that happen?

How did that happen?

What situations was it responding to?

How is it even possible that
something like that could happen?

These are the kinds of questions that
have to be asked for that kind of theory.

There's also within that I would put
a perspective called IIT, integrated

information theory, that basically ranks
everything from zero to 10 as far as how

much consciousness that they have with,
something like a rock being near the

bottom, human beings being much higher up.

And then at some point it's the
question of when does it check off

the box from becoming some kind of
awareness, responsivity into being

consciousness as we define consciousness.

We're gonna get back to that theory
because at some point I actually think

there's a horseshoe theory, and a lot of
these material scientists actually become

panpsychists, but spoiler alert for that.

The other question that people have on
the metaphysical front is what you call

the combination problem, which is if you
assume that we are not actually conscious,

the consciousness is a I think Daniel
Dennett referred to it as a user illusion.

We only think we're conscious, but really
we're not conscious, and it's only through

being nurtured in such a way that we
assume that we are a single being, but

really we're this hive mind of, cells that
are working together in different ways.

So then the question becomes how do all
of these individual little things end up

coming together to form consciousness?

And again, I actually think that
theory wraps back around into another

theory, but, we have to get to that.

But those are basically the two
problems that you see broadly in the

materialist realm is the emergence
problem, how did it emerge, and the

combination problem of if it really is,
tiny little robots all the way down.

I think Daniel Dennett had a quote
saying, "The soul exists, but

it's a bunch of little robots."

How does it come together
into a singular unity?

And there's a lot of challenges in
trying to figure out those answers

Rabbi David Silverstein: Okay, maybe
we could just for the purposes of

the conversation, just divide it,
because I think that the issue of

like consciousness as an illusion
we'll get to like in a minute.

But specifically among the people who
are metaphysical materialists and do

believe that consciousness emerges, right?

So it, it seems to me, and again,
I understand the need to answer the

question for the materialist, right?

But it seems to me that this seems
to be almost like a very type of

like speculative answer, right?

Because again, it solves the
problem through some type…

By positing something, but it's not
something which can be demonstrated

in any meaningful way in a lab, right?

So in other words, if you're
gonna be somebody who thinks that

consciousness just emerged you have
to basically explain why that would

happen and like at what point that
would happen and how that happened.

This obviously has lots of
implications for thinking about AI.

You could imagine somebody who's an
emergent the- theory of emergence can

say when AI gets really smart, right?

So eventually it will maybe
be conscious as well."

But maybe we'll talk
about AI a little later.

My question for you really is though is
that do you think that the argument of

the materialist who operates within the
realm of the emergence theory it's a

compelling argument in the sense that it
is in any way more demonstrable than a

kind of a classic religious answer that
like, consciousness is really the divine

entity that infuses the whole world.

Do you think there's anything
more like scientifically rigorous

about this materialist answer, or
is this just kinda you know what

we were saying, she was a k'tzet.

We have a dokha.

We have to solve a problem.

So okay, this will be a tekum.

We'll do the best we can until
we get to a better answer.

R' Steven Gotlib: Yeah, so I personally
don't find it particularly compelling.

I will say when I had my, I guess I
frame it as my angsty atheist phase

in the middle of or early on in
college as many people have, and I

was, studying philosophy as a minor
at Rutgers I really did try to look

into this from the realm of naturalism
and say how does this come together?"

And one of the things that guided me
back to significant spirituality was

actually finding those answers wanting.

And I think it's important to acknowledge
that even within both philosophy and

science, there really are still some
live questions that are out there that no

matter what someone's religious background
is, no matter what someone's particular

perspective is, really is a live debate.

Free will is a live debate in
many circles within philosophy.

One can be a determinist, one can
believe in libertarian free will.

Those are both, they're still trying
to figure out which one is right,

but it's perfectly acceptable to
be on either side of that debate.

And I think consciousness is, if not
already, one of the major ones where there

are so many different potentialities.

And even on the materialist front within
them I think they're right to say from

a meta, from a naturalist perspective
within the laboratory, I am going to

say for the sake of assumption, let's
assume that dualism, that there's a

body-soul divide is out of the picture.

So how do we solve this question?

But to my mind, when you solve that
question either only by asking more

questions, which not to say that's
an illegitimate approach, but just

to say it's a little less fulfilling
to me when there are other theories

that are viable that lead to answers.

Or you solve that question by
effectively wrapping back around just

under more technical laboratory terms.

At some point I, I ask
what are we doing here?

Rabbi David Silverstein: Okay.

Very, yeah, again, I think that
is exactly the issue, right?

In other words, the kind of the,
in, in sort of that worldview, you

know, the, the dualist model the
religious model thinks that there's

a soul in the body is off the table.

Yet it seems like the answer of the
materialist who argues for emergence is

coming up with something which seems,
very speculative, not sure in any way

is more rigorous than anything we would
argue in the context o- of Jewish thought.

Let's move to the second possible
solution, which you alluded to before, is

the idea that you could be a materialist,
a metaphysical materialist, and believe

that consciousness is an illusion, right?

So you mentioned before Sam Harris.

So actually I watched a debate many years
ago between Sam Harris and Rabbi David

Wolpe, and I actually thought that Sam
Harris did a, a better job in the debate.

But there was this one moment where Sam
Harris basically said science can explain

everything except for consciousness.

And Rabbi Wolpe's point was like
consciousness is the sort of entry

point to all religious experience.

So if you can't explain that,
you got a lot more to explain.

But what's interesting about Sam
Harris, and this relates to what you

were saying before about free will,
is that, thinkers who believe that

consciousness is an illusion, right?

That we're living in this reality that we
have consciousness, but we don't, right?

They don't necessarily only think
consciousness is an illusion.

They may also think things
that we take for granted, like

free will, is also an illusion.

This is Sam Harris In other
words, Sam Harris also thinks

that free will is an illusion.

And he's done these experiments on
his podcast where he'll say things

like pick your favorite song," right?

And then, whatever your favorite
song is pops in your brain.

But it's not as if you surveyed through
your entire mental library of songs and

had a debate about, whether you prefer Red
Hot Chili Peppers or Dave Matthews Band.

So you can t- you can see
that I'm a child of the '90s.

Okay, but the idea basically is that
it just instinctively came to you.

So his argument basically is, and again,
maybe oversimplifying it, is that we're

living in this space where, we think
we're making choices all the time,

but it's more complicated than that.

Now, again, maybe you could just elaborate
for a few minutes what exactly is this

theory of consciousness as an illusion?

Again what exactly does
it even solve, right?

In other words, that also is a theory.

It's speculative, right?

But what exactly does it mean?

Sam Harris talks about how, people
think that there's this little

person in their mind guiding their
life, but that's not true, right?

We perceive it that way,
but it's an illusion.

So maybe you can just speak for a
few minutes of what, how is this in

any way helpful to the conversation
to just posit it's all an illusion?

R' Steven Gotlib: Yeah, for sure.

So I think first of all,
it's important to note…

So I think there is a distinction
to be made between someone like Sam

Harris, who my understanding is that
he does think there is something

there that's consciousness, even
if it's separate from our identity.

And his wife, Anneke Harris, actually
has a wonderful article about that,

where she basically says we need to
have a division between our sense of

self and our sense of consciousness,
that these are different things, right?

If you erase every memory in my
head, there will still be some

kind of consciousness here.

I will still be responsive
to certain things.

There will still be a certain sense of
I in my head, but that I is not me as I

have developed over, the past 30 years.

Versus someone like Daniel Dennett,
Anil Seth, thinkers like that, who

will say consciousness is an illusion.

We don't really have consciousness.

We just think that we have consciousness,
and it's only something that we've

evolved into for whether convenience
or, other evolutionary needs.

And by the way, in case listeners
are getting worried I'll just

note I don't plan on name-dropping
and footnoting this conversation.

If people want to look
these names up, they can.

I have articles written on these things.

But I'll try to limit this to concepts.

And so on that note, so when you say
consciousness is an illusion, there's

really a few things you could mean.

You could mean consciousness
is an illusion in that I

really am not conscious.

If you take away all of the preferences
that I have grown into and all of

the environmental factors in my life
and all of the, you know, various

things that could have impacted my
position on things, it would be totally

different because all I am at my core
is something that is responding to

the various stimuli around me and
forming what I think is an identity,

is a conscious identity based on that.

That's one way of answering it, at
which point you still need to ask

the question, why do I have that
experience in the first place?

Why aren't I just a tree?

Why are we able to actually
respond to things at all?

If you assume consciousness is just an
illusion and I'm only, responding to

stimuli and forming an identity based
on that, but really deep down I don't

have this thing called consciousness,
so you have to ask why do I have

that experience in the first place?

Why am I able to respond to the
things around me in the first place?

How does that start?

How does that develop?"

And then you have to look
all the way back, why is that

something anything can do?

And you end up back at the
same kind of hard problem.

The other way you can go about it,
which is the Daniel Dennett's way of

going about it, is if you say we're
all basically a hive mind of, little

things that think on a more basic level
that come together, and the illusion

part is a sense of unified self.

So then you also have to ask
how do those little things

have that ability to do that?

So even if one can say, "Okay, maybe
I'm a little midichlorians from Star

Wars that all come together to give
me the illusion of being a unified,

singular being," how are those things
able to respond to their stimuli?

And how far down does that go?

So you just have these same questions,
I think, that keep coming up.

And so I don't know
what it actually solves.

I think what these approaches
do is they give you…

If you are a naturalist, they
give you room to continue

exploring and asking questions.

But I have yet to see, serious
answers provided by them

Rabbi David Silverstein: Yeah, the
reason why I think it's important

framing is because I think a lot of
times people think about science as

being more rigorous in the sense that,
it's only gonna posit theories, right?

Which kind of pass the test of being
able to be, let's say, peer-reviewed

in a serious scientific journal, right?

Whereas these theories are important,
and obviously there are very serious

thinkers who are thinking about
them, but they don't lack problems.

In other words, they're not like, theories
that are in any way like demonstrable

that anybody could look at and say,
"Okay, that is definitively true, and

therefore we can move on to the next
sort of possible problem," right?

So with those two possible solutions
in mind, both the emergence theory

and the theory of consciousness as
an illusion let's move now to I think

the most exciting theory, at least
in terms of get coming to some type

of harmony between philosophy and
Judaism when thinking about science,

when thinking about consciousness.

And that is the view
of panpsychism, right?

So panpsychism sounds like a very
complicated philosophical word.

It sounds like
philosophical jargon, right?

But actually for this conversation,
it's actually really important, right?

Because if you're Jewish and you're
interested in the question of

consciousness, and you just do a
quick Google search of Judaism and

consciousness, you'll see that the word
panpsychism comes up over and over again.

So maybe just if you could
explain for a few minutes what

exactly is panpsychism, right?

Not necessarily from a Jewish
perspective, but from a

philosophical perspective, right?

In other words, if you're somebody who is
not religious, who rejects dualism, right?

And is not interested in emergence,
not interested in ph- in consciousness

as an illusion, and you come up with
this theory called I'm a materialist,

but I believe in panpsychism.

What exactly is the
substance of that claim?

R' Steven Gotlib: Yeah, so panpsychism
is basically an understanding

that posits that consciousness
is fundamental to reality, that

consciousness goes all the way down.

It's not necessarily saying that
everything is within conscious-

w- we'll get into the more
philosophical stuff within Judaism.

But it basically says consciousness
is an inherent part of reality

that permeates all of reality, and
therefore, everything in some sense

has capacity for consciousness.

The question is, at what point
does it reach the level of, what

I would call human consciousness,
me and you consciousness?

But there would be a spectrum
of consciousness that is

permeating reality that is just
inherent in how the world works

Rabbi David Silverstein:
Which is intuitive, right?

Because if you think about it, let's
say for example, you relative to a

dog or me relative to a bat, right?

We would assume that, the Halakha has a
concept of tzar baalei chayim assuming

that, animals do experience tzar, right?

That is a conscious experience of tzar.

We do acknowledge that, animals are
conscious creatures, but we would also say

that their nature of their consciousness
is different than the consciousness

that you or I experience, right?

But again, one thing I would point out
here is that it seems to me that what the

panpsychist theory shares with the theory
of emergence is that it posits a theory

which is not in any way philosophically
demonstrable, at least in terms of

some, some type of like laboratory test.

In other words, to claim that s-
that, it's a definitional feature

of reality that consciousness just
underlies existence and, maybe a

rock has it on a scale of point one,
whereas you have it on out of 10.

Yeah, that, that's great.

Sounds great to me.

I'm a religious person.

I'm familiar with the Tanya and Rav
Kook, and that sounds wonderful.

But I'm saying for the secular materialist
I'm just not sure h- how that theory

in any way really solves the problem.

It seems like it does exactly what you
described before, which is to posit

a theory, allow you to stay within
the materials framework, dismiss the

possibility of dualism, but posit
something that may seem compelling

but is no way a slam dunk argument.

So just in terms of the substance
of the claim, like what exactly

is it trying to accomplish?

And it's obviously these thinkers
are aware of the downsides.

Like how would you defend the materialist
who articulates the panpsychist theory?

R' Steven Gotlib: Oh, for sure.

So actually it's really interesting.

I think that even though there's no
demonstrable proof that calls itself,

this proof of panpsychism, so I actually
do think if you have an assumption of

panpsychism, there are a lot of things
that are being discovered in other

fields of science that I would say
corroborate that ki- that kind of thing.

In, in, in environmental science or
in biology, there are studies showing

intercommunication between plant life,
for example, and, navigating the water

and nutrient contents amongst forests
of trees, for example, that show

that it doesn't seem to be random.

There's work from a professor at
University of Chicago on, on cell

structures and how even single-celled
organisms seem to be able to respond

in ways that also have some level of
strategy to it, that it's not just

random and it's not just the brain
telling it to do this, but its own

individual decision-making happening.

I don't really have an understanding of
quantum physics, but my understanding it

from people who do have an understanding
of quantum physics is that you see

some level of that on the atomic level.

I don't know.

Ask your atomic physicist friends.

But, all of these things I think would
make sense under panpsychist assumptions

and would not necessarily make sense
under purely materialist assumptions.

So I think it actually holds a lot
more water than the materialist.

But yeah, at the end of the day,
we're not going to definitively

prove this one way or the other.

It's really a question of what
provides better answers in the moment.

And, you know me, as a, let's say
philosophically inclined observer of

the conversations going on in philosophy
and neuroscience and to a lesser degree

biology and quantum physics I would
think that if your only two options are

panpsychism and materialism, panpsychism
takes the cake just based on what

we're seeing in all these other fields

Rabbi David Silverstein: Okay.

What you're basically saying is that
panpsych-panpsychism in isolation may be

as speculative as other theories, right?

But it happens to have sort of
corroborative evidence outside of

the philosophical realm, right?

And that corroborative evidence, like
even if you're still a materialist seems

to lead more credence to the panpsychist
theory as opposed to the other materialist

options, like the question of emergence.

Okay?

Now, obviously from a Jewish perspective
there is obviously some appeal

towards, this model of panpsychism.

I actually, in researching for
this podcast today, I found online

that apparently, again I didn't
check this with Cleary shown.

I don't own a Sefer-- a copy of Sefer
Yetzirah handily in, in my library.

Probably should.

But basically, according to this
website that I found, it says that

Sefer Yetzirah describes the universe
as made of space, time, and soul.

Okay?

So if you think about it there is a sense
that emerges from the Jewish mystical

tradition, which w-we maybe will talk
about in a few minutes that assumes

that basically the soul the experience
of reality that we encounter through

our own subjective sense of soul is
fundamental to the world itself, right?

That somehow, the world itself is
made up of some type of structure

of souls, and we would assume that
maybe consciousness is exactly that.

But before we get to that,
let's just stop for a second and

think biblically for a minute.

Let's just think about
the biblical paradigm.

We're Parsha Noah, not that far
away from Parsha Bereishit, right?

So if you had to think about just
like the biblical framing in, say,

Bereishit, the image of, God basically
blowing life into man, right?

Do you get the sense that the way in
which Judaism would think about the

question of consciousness independently
of panpsychism would be to assume that

basically the soul and consciousness
are effectively synonymous, right?

What do you…

'Cause we always talk
about the soul, right?

But it's like amorphous concept, like
what does it mean to have a soul?

But would you assume that, this
is actually the conscious identity

that we're experiencing is exactly
what God blew into Adam Harishon.

And the reason why animals have it
too, even though it's articulated

that way in the text, is because
the text is only articulating the

most elevated form of consciousness,
which we experience all the time.

An animal may experience a lower
level of consciousness, but

that's not the same thing at
least in the biblical description.

So just before we get to panpsychism and
mysticism and Rav Kook and the Nefesh

HaChaim, just reading Sefer Bereishit,
would you assume that, this, this soul

entity that we're talking about of God
blowing something into Adam Harishon,

is that just basically some other
way of saying conscious experience?

R' Steven Gotlib: Yeah, I would think so.

I think when it comes to viewing stories
like that, I tend to look at a lot

of these through the lens, through a
Maimonidean lens in terms of what is

the presentation of the story in Lashon
Bnei Adam, and what is it that we are

meant to take out of it on the more
intellectual, philosophical level.

So I think the, the basic presentation
is one of pretty much pure dualism.

Hashem creates a physical world and
blows in immaterial soul into human

beings that we now all have that
is distinct from other creatures.

I think there is a way of reading
it, especially as we get into

ideas of Tzimtzum, which I'm sure
we will discuss in a few minutes.

But I think there is a way of reading it
that says some level of awareness is part

of creation already, which animals already
have and demonstrate already having.

And what Hashem gave to Adam
HaRishon is this elevated sense

of self and this elevated sense
of understanding and subjectivity

Rabbi David Silverstein: But again, but
that would be different than, let's say,

the concept of Tzelem Elokim, right?

'Cause again, this is always one
of the loops you get into, right?

There's a debate in medieval and
modern Jewish thought about what

exactly does Tzelem Elokim mean, right?

So you'll have the view that says like
the Rambam talks about that the Tzelem

Elokim is like the intellect, right?

And then people question that Rambam.

But I think, if I remember correctly,
Nachman Rabinovich has an essay where

he tries to talk about rethinking the
Rambam that not specifically using

the language of the intellect, but
rather the language of the mind, right?

Which if you think about it that way,
then it does sound like Tzelem Elokim

and all these things are like offshoots
of the same sort of, experience of

individualized consciousness that
makes me, and that makes you, right?

'Cause otherwise, you do have this
mystery, like what is it about

us that, God imparted into us?

What exactly is the soul, right?

But if you talk this language of Tzelem
Elokim or being some type of, conscious

experience, and that's exactly what God
blew into us, and that's our divine part.

So then it seems to me like it
really makes you appreciate the

extent to which your individualized
self is something that was given

to you as a gift from God, right?

And that seems to be like at least
one possible reading of the simple

pshat of safe operation, right?

R' Steven Gotlib: I would think so.

I'll also add since it is still timely,
there, one of my rebbeim at YU, I

forget exactly who I heard it from,
but one of the my rebbeim at YU said

that Rav Soloveitchik would always,
would ask students apparently, "What's

the first mitzvah in the Torah?"

And you'd have the common
answers, Purim, Rosh Chodesh.

So apparently, per Rav Soloveitchik, the
first mitzvah in the Torah is Bereishit

Barah Elokim, and that is the mitzvah
that just as Hashem was creative, so

too must we all be creative, which is
actually based on the Nefesh HaChayim

in Halach in an interesting way.

I think that sense of self and
creativity and the ability to

impact the world on this level, that
sounds to me like Sechel Malachim

Rabbi David Silverstein: But
again, just to push on that

there's two different things.

In other words there's the
creative capacity that I

have, and there's a conscious
experience of me being me, right?

So even if I'm not a particularly
creative person I still have a

conscious experience of me being me.

A- and that is the most definitional
feature of my life, meaning there's

no other reality that I'm living in
other than my own consciousness, right?

In other words, that- that's it.

What do I have in my life if I don't
have conscious experience, right?

So that has to be, at least in
the biblical framing, the ultimate

gift, or at least one possible-
possibility of the ultimate gift.

Because, being creative is a derivative.

But a- again, a life without
consciousness, you're just a robot, right?

You're not a person, right?

So maybe we could just speak for a few
minutes about move a little bit back

to panpsychism, away from shot readings
of Bereishit, and talk about how this

would interact with Jewish mysticism.

In your article, you talk
a lot about the Tanya.

There are citations in liter- in
literature that say things like "" right?

A sense that there's nothing
in the world absent God, right?

Now, how would those like more mystically
inclined theories about the nature of

existence interact with this theory
of panpsychism that assumes that

consciousness is fundamental, right?

Do we assume that basically
consciousness being fundamental

is synonymous with God, right?

Is there some sort of
other way to explain it?

How do you harmonize the sort of
those two theories of the world?

R' Steven Gotlib: For sure.

So I've always been very
taken aback by the mystical

approach in this conversation.

The Tanya is certainly where I've seen it
said the most bluntly, which is just that,

when we say that Hashem has to shrink
himself to create other things, this idea

of Tzimtzum in the Lurianic Kabbalistic
framework the Tanya basically says,

based on the mystical tradition that it's
coming from, this is not a literal thing.

Hashem cannot make himself smaller.

Hashem can only give us the illusion
of being separate from Hashem.

And so if godliness is imbued in
everything, and we only have the

illusion of being something separate,
that sounds to me like a mystical

religious way of saying panpsychism.

I think that it's very much,
two sides of the same coin.

If we expect that godliness is
literally part and parcel with reality

in some way, and there are different
ways of formulating that and framing

that, which I get into a little bit
in the end of my article, so there

are different ways of doing that.

But if you assume that godliness with
a capital G and connection to Hashem is

inherent in reality, that sounds to me
like a very good explanation for why we

would see on these lower levels of life
these kinds of non-random decision-making.

That seems to me a good indication
towards panpsychism writ large.

I think it's very aligned

Rabbi David Silverstein: But just if
you can explain that a little further.

In other words, i-i-if we
believe that there's…

So we operate within a divine framing.

In other words, think
about like a balloon.

It's like God is the balloon, right?

And we operate in that balloon, right?

In-- if you operate inside
the balloon then you see the

balloon everywhere, right?

So if you think about this framing of
Tzimtzum so then there's a sense that,

we're operating within a divine space.

But how would that necessarily lead
to individual consciousness, right?

'Cause it seems to me that in the
panpsychist theory there's a sense

that sort of consciousness is
built into the fabric of all lived

experience, and somehow through
that, we're tapping into it and then

experiencing it on different levels.

Are you basically saying that in the
model of the Tzimtzum and Efeshchaim,

that basically God in this case, is
the anchor of consciousness, right?

He is everywhere, and every person
who's experiencing subjective encounters

with reality is just channeling sort of
their own entry point to God himself.

In other words what exactly
is happening, right?

It's like we're all in this divine space,
and then you, Steve, have this experience,

and me, David, have this experience.

Why don't we have the same experience?

Why aren't we just
channeling divinity, right?

Why are we having different
experiences of activity, right?

Why are we having different encounters
with the divine if we're just becoming

conduits for this divine energy?

R' Steven Gotlib: Yeah.

So I th- I think that is
more or less where it is.

I will say two things.

I'll say, number one is that, these
sefarim, Tanya and Nefesh HaChayim and,

all, all sorts of sefarim that get into
this, will address the question of why do

we have this subjective sense of self now?

We've effectively the anthropian because
that's what Hashem wants from us so

that we, have free will and do mitzvahs,
and all, all the typical answers that

we don't have to get into right now.

But they do address that.

The second thing that I would address
is that this kind of conversation is

exactly why, the Nefesh HaChayim, for
example, contrary to Tanya, will say

the Tanya will say, "We should recognize
that we are part of this holiness, and

everything we're doing is contributing
towards that, and there's kedusha in

everything," et cetera, et cetera.

And the Nefesh HaChayim basically
says, "Let's not do that.

There are specific times when
we should focus on that."

I think he says there are three times
when we should, when we can focus on the

true divinity of reality and that Hashem
is Memalek kol, kol olam instead of

Sovel kol olam, to use his terminology.

So I think he says those three times
are saying Shema with proper kavana,

because you need to know what you
mean when you say Hashem Echad.

You need to literally say Shema lishma.

He says when you're about to
sacrifice yourself Al kidush

Hashem, to understand the divine
context in which that is happening.

And I believe the third time he says
it is either during the Shemoneh

Esrei or during berakhot writ large.

I think he has an idea of berakhah Hashem
Elokeynu Melekh HaOlam and Hashem and

Elokenu being the two different kinds,
with the infinite versus the subjective.

One of those two is it.

Someone who has Nefesh HaChayim in front
of them and listening to this podcast

can fact correct me on which one it is.

But he basically says we're limiting it to
those times because the rest of the time

what are we doing thinking about that?

It's just gonna be a distraction.

It's going to lead to, dangerous
people doing whatever they wanna do.

So he was very cognizant of the fact
that this is a hard conversation

to have, and it's hard to grasp.

Having said those two things, if you
ask me personally what I think the

metaphysics of reality are within that
kind of framework, yeah, I would basically

say godliness underlies all of reality.

Everything has that spark in the
background of it in some capacity,

and what allows human beings to have
more of a sense of our self-identity

and purpose is that's what Hashem
allows to give us as human beings.

If you wanna go back to the pshat
of Bereishit, so maybe blowing in

the neshamah to Adam HaRishon gives
us an extra point of connection to

that is above everything, and like
a candle splitting another candle

in the Baal HaTanya's framework.

So we all have that in ourselves, but it's
going down the line in different ways.

There are many ways that one
can, I think one can explain it.

But I do think more or
less that's what things are

Rabbi David Silverstein: Okay,
let's maybe we can talk for

a few minutes about Rav Kook.

Rav Kook obviously the risk with
mystical thinking in general is

that it can move quickly into
what's called pantheism, right?

The idea that basically I am God.

And you can imagine that somebody
who's talking the language of, God

being definitional that we exist
within sort of the divine space, right?

Talking about the idea of Ein Od Milvado.

You can imagine that someone could
say effectively, if I'm like an

offshoot of God, if I exist within
divine space then I am God."

And I think this gets what I was talking
about before, which is that, it does

raise this question of, for the mystics,
which is if I operate in that space,

then why aren't we just all channeling
the exact same divine encounter?

Why are we having different experiences
that reflect our own subjectivity, right?

So actually, I think Rav Kook
here may be an interesting sort of

entry point to solve this problem.

Rav Kook develops a, a theory which has
been labeled by, you know, people after

Rav Kook called panentheism, right?

The idea that we exist within God, right?

But God is greater than
the sum of the parts.

In other words, there's like a
transcendent God that's beyond

us, and there's a more intimate
God that we sort of encounter.

So maybe if you could speak for a
few minutes about panpsychism and

its relation to panentheism, right?

The two pans, right?

The panpsychism, panentheism, and to
what degree does the panentheist theory

solve some of the challenges of the
classic kind of tzimtzum paradigm?

R' Steven Gotlib: Yeah I think
the panentheist theory solves

a lot of these, frankly.

So a- as you mentioned, the difference
between pantheism and panentheism is that

in panentheism, we are within that divine
framework, but that divine framework

also quite literally transcends us.

If you imagine two circles, it's one
circle inside of the other circle

definitively, as opposed to, two overlap-
two totally overlapping ones or, one

circle that's underlied with other things.

And that is the difference between
someone like, Rav Kook on the one hand

and Lahav, someone like Spinoza on the
other hand, is that is the pantheist

versus panentheist divide right there.

I think what panentheism does is it
reminds us at all times, yes, we can

tap into this holiness and it underlies
reality, but it is also beyond us.

We are not where the buck stops.

We never can be where the buck stops.

There is greater commandedness and
divinity that is around us that we

still have to aspire to, and is not,
we are a part of that, but it is

not, but we are not in charge of that

Rabbi David Silverstein: The way I think
it's been articulated the way I've heard

it explained is the idea that like if you
think about like God being the son, right?

So we're like the rays of the son.

In other words, like we're an
expression of the divine, but we're

not actually the divine itself.

So let's plug in this theory, right?

So if you go this route of Rav
Kook panentheism, and you plug it

into the panpsychic model, right?

So basically you'd be saying
that, God is the definitional

feature of reality, right?

And that is the analog to, the model,
the panpsychic theory that like

consciousness is definitional, right?

That would be the first
step you would say.

Then you would say that, okay, but
when I interact with that, right?

The more that's-- Then I bring my
own individual sort of reality,

which is also God-given, right?

That's my soul, right?

And basically, that then
becomes the conduit, right?

Where I'm able to channel
the divine through me, right?

And that may mean that, for example, the
more I'm invested in the world of mitzvot,

the more that I'm invested in prayer, et
cetera, the more accid- the more access

I'll have to this type of divine energy.

But it also may explain some of
the subjective elements, right?

'Cause it would basically assume that even
though there's like a subjective reality

that exists independently of us, right?

The part that we encounter to a certain
degree captures-- is filtered through

our own subjectivity and our own sense
of our individualized souls, right?

And therefore, that combination will
generate my experience of consciousness in

a way that could be different than yours.

Would you say that's a good way
of thinking about how this sort

of like squares the circle of the
objective conscious element versus

the subjective conscious element?

R' Steven Gotlib: Yeah, I would think so.

Rabbi David Silverstein: And how would
you think about it in terms of…

so far we've talked about
two mystical approaches.

One model being Rav Kook, the
second model being the Tanya.

So let's go back to like backwards in
time, before mysticism became like the

dominant stream of Jewish thought, right?

Let's go back to Rav Saadia
Gaon and the Rambam, right?

So let's say, for example, you
reject the whole tzimtzum paradigm.

Let's say, for example, you're not
interested in thinking about us

operating within a div-divine space.

You don't think about Ein Od
Milvado as kind of your operative

principle or panentheism.

H-how is, let's say, the Rambam
or somebody operating with a more

classical monotheistic framing
think about consciousness?

Like what is it?

R' Steven Gotlib: Yeah, for sure.

So the Rambam's a really
interesting figure in this regard.

When we think about how the Rambam, the
Rambam's metaphysics, so he was operating

in, largely an Aristotelian milieu.

He adapted from Aristotle.

It's not purely Aristotelian.

I call it a modified Aristotelian position
when I teach it in certain contexts.

But his position is basically that
Hashem has emanations through every

layer of reality that can be tapped
into by rationally perfecting oneself.

So for the Rambam, the way that
prophecy worked was that you would

have people train their minds to
tap into that divine directionality,

the ratzon Hashem in our terms.

And I think I heard this was Dr.

Daniel Reinhold, the Dean of Revel, who
I read this in, says that the miracle

of prophecy for the Rambam is not that
it exists, because its existence is

just natural based on how the world
works according to that paradigm.

The miracle is that only selective
people were allowed to tap into it.

But on a natural level, one would
expect you're able to tap into it

in theory, Jewish or not, as long as
you're able to achieve that level of,

philosophical, meditative perfection.

And

Rabbi David Silverstein: but, so
just to clarify, in, in your reading

of the Rambam that way, doesn't
that sound very similar to the idea

that consciousness is definitional?

The only difference would be is that
not everybody could tap into it.

It's like a closed box, right?

In other words, like it's there for
anybody to tap into if they want, but the

undercurrent is the same, which is that
there's a definitional reality out there.

It's like a faucet, right?

It's if

R' Steven Gotlib: Right

Rabbi David Silverstein: you
have a faucet and you close

it and you turn it on, right?

So the water comes through.

So the water's always there,
I just couldn't access it.

So what do you say in
the Maimonidean reading?

It's basically the same?

R' Steven Gotlib: I would think so.

I think where, there are subtle
differences in the Maimonidean

reading of, what level everything
is under divine hashgacha.

You can get into a lot of
these kinds of discussions.

You read the Moreh Nevuchim and find
five different answers to this question.

But yeah, I think that the Rambam's idea
of divine emanations also leans in, if not

a panpsychist direction, at least in what
maybe someone like David Chalmers would

call a naturalistic dualist perspective.

Which is basically that you have
consciousness being a fundamental

part of reality, but there is still
a physical/non-physical divide.

But I think the Rambam certainly
points in those directions

Rabbi David Silverstein: And you
would assume according to the Rambam,

according to that framing of it, again,
only the intellectual elite have the

most elevated form of consciousness

R' Steven Gotlib: I would say the,
philosophical intellectual elite would

have the most elevated connection
to that pure unadulterated divinity.

I think everyone, certainly human
beings would have, consciousness

as we describe consciousness.

But yeah, I think that higher level of
connection to divinity would be, again,

in theory reachable by everyone, in
practice only reachable to those who are

achieving that, that high level according
to these understandings of the Rambam

Rabbi David Silverstein: Maybe we
could just end for a few minutes

moving from the time of the Rambam to
the 21st century, and talk for a few

minutes about the way in which these
different theories of consciousness

are playing out in real terms right
now in the conversation about AI.

I realize AI and consciousness
is another podcast.

Maybe we'll have you on
to talk about that, right?

But at least for a few minutes so
that, if you've made it this far in

the podcast and you've gone through the
Rambam and the Tanya and panpsychism

and materialism and all the different
thinkers we've discussed, right?

You may wonder how is this relevant
in any way towards contemporary

conversation of the world absent,
listening to a podcast, in the car.

But it actually is very relevant, right?

Because there are serious philosophical
questions that are emerging right

now about the nature of AI and how-
whether or not the AI is conscious.

So I think intuitively at least
if you didn't, before you got

into any serious conversation of
Jewish thought, you'd probably say

the AI is not conscious, right?

Because you'd probably say
something like consciousness is

a function of a divine gift."

The idea that God, gave human beings some
sort of conscious reality that's very

elevated, and even if an AI is conscious,
very low-level consciousness, right?

But maybe you could just play out
for a few minutes how different

thinkers are trying to plug in these
different models of panpsychism, of

materialism, of emerging consciousness,
of consciousness and illusion, right?

In thinking about what it means for
an AI to be an intellectual power,

which is, way stronger than any of
us, but at the same time, potentially

not be a conscious creature.

R' Steven Gotlib: Yeah, 100%.

So there's a really interesting book that
was put out actually before the big AI

boom, funny enough by David Chalmers, who
coined the hard problem of consciousness

and was a big proponent of these kinds of
things and consciousness being fundamental

to reality called Reality+, where he
actually talks about the idea of if you

can have a simulated human being who
really is able to express all of these

things and, s- have a self-explanation
for who they are, we won't know what's

going on behind the scenes there, but
it would seem like they're conscious.

And he has a lot of thought
experiments like that in the book.

It's a very really interesting read.

And I always think about stuff like
that when we have these conversations.

I think there's two sides of the coin.

There's how can something actually
develop consciousness, in which case, you

need to ask, what does that look like?

And I actually think it is possible,
I don't know how soon, but I think

it's certainly possible to create a
good enough imitation of consciousness

that even if there's no self-identity
in there, maybe it could have it,

its own illusion of self-identity.

So I would be worried
about that practically.

I wouldn't be bothered
theologically by the possibility.

I said this in another podcast.

I wouldn't be theologically bothered
by the idea that humans can create

artificial humans, but I would
be bothered practically in what

does that mean from a moral level.

'Cause then we would have all sorts
of obligations morally to say we don't

know what's going on in their head,
so maybe we should just play it safe."

And that really worries me.

But yeah I think these are
live conversations with AI.

I personally am always careful that
if I'm asking ChatGPT or Claude to do

something for me, I will say please
in the prompt that I give it, and I'll

usually also say thank you in advance,
because I don't wanna waste more water by

saying thank you as a separate message,
but I wanna make sure to say it because

that's just important for me to maintain
that, I am a good person who cares

about this and does not overthink it.

And, just in case, why not?

So I do think these are
relevant conversations.

I wouldn't be worried about AI
developing a soul in the religious sense.

Assuming that is all within Hashem's
guiding hands of what has a soul, so I

wouldn't assume that AI will develop that.

But I certainly think that in least
in theory, we're capable of creating

imitation consciousness in things,
and that should worry us at the

very least on a practical level

Rabbi David Silverstein: Sorry,
just to push back on that.

I'm still a little confused about how you
would conceptualize the difference between

the soul and the conscious experience.

In other words what is the soul, right?

And if you think about just like
intuitively your sort of most

elementary reflection on like
what happens when you die, right?

So I can imagine us thinking
about what happens when we die?

Our bodies stay here and we just kinda
float away and our soul continues, right?

It's like almost like a dream, right?

And like a dream, you're having
this conscious reality and like I'm

interacting, with you in a dream
as if I'm talking to you right

now, but you're not there, right?

I'm not there.

You're not there.

We're just dreaming of it, right?

So I just have a hard time, and I think
this sort of underlies much of our

conversation, like I feel like part of the
challenge here is trying to distinguish

between consciousness and soul.

It seems to me that maybe the
soul is consciousness plus,

but w-what else could it be?

In other words, if you imagine
your reality in Olam Ha-Ba, right?

Imagine like you're living, me
and you are in Olam Ha-Ba one

day and we're talking, right?

'Cause like what else do Jews
do in Olam Ha-Ba but pontificate

about philosophy, right?

So we're pontificating about divine
energy in Olam Ha-Ba, but what is that?

We don't have brains, right?

So w-we have to have some
type of encounter with reality

that is processing something.

Again, it's the soul,
but w-what is the soul?

So it seems to me that like the
definitions here are important, like,

and that's why I keep pressing on this.

In other words, do you think that
the soul is just consciousness plus?

'Cause like once you start to say
that, that AI can have consciousness

but not a soul, you basically
start to isolate the soul from

the conversation of consciousness.

Whereas like the way I would think about
it is that they're one and the same, which

is why AI probably can't be conscious
because again, it requires some element

of a soul that's beyond the capacity,
at least from a religious perspective,

for an inanimate object to have.

So how would you think about
the soul versus, consciousness

sort of definition playing out?

R' Steven Gotlib: Yeah.

So I think I'll say this.

So first of all, the, the afterlife
conversation is a really interesting

corollary to this one, which is,
even moving beyond the if you go

from near-death experiences to
consciousness to afterlife, that's

just a fascinating exploration.

The afterlife conversation is really
interesting 'cause I think actually

panpsychism would point towards Gilgul
and concepts like that, as well as

more traditional models of afterlife.

But I think when it comes to
understanding what the soul is in

that division, I really think the
best way to do that is experiential.

When I do the experiment of close your
eyes for 30 seconds and just try to think

about nothing, and even as thoughts stop
entering your head, there is still that

core sense of me-ness that is there,
even in absence of direct thoughts.

That, I think that visceral
feeling is where the soul is.

That sense of I am still a self that
is here, that is cognizant, I'm not

convinced that's something that,
AI, for example, has or will have.

There might be, programs that say, "This
is how you respond as if you had that."

I certainly think at a certain
level, there's probably not that

sense of self-awareness, even if
there is responsivity on the level

of, let's say lesser creatures
in a general broad category.

But I know viscerally that's
something that, that we have, and

that is something that we have
that, I imagine once we die will no

longer be tied in our physical form

Rabbi David Silverstein: But it,
again, Using that experiment, wasn't

that the exact same experiment we
used at the beginning to define

the hard problem of consciousness?

In that moment where you're not thinking
but still feeling, so you're having a

conscious encounter with reality, right?

And that's the point is that it's
this conscious interaction with

reality which, in theory, should be
shut off because, for all intents

and purposes, the lights went out.

In other words, we
stopped thinking, right?

So again, I, the reason why this
speaks to me so much personally is just

because I feel like it's actually an
amazing entry point and an attempt to

create an overlap between the world
of science, philosophy, and religion.

All of a sudden, what we've been
describing for so long as the soul has

now come into conversation through, this
idea of the hard problem of consciousness.

That all of a sudden people are starting
to really think about what does it mean

for a person to be a person, right?

And the AI is like the test case and,
we're like playing out this very deep

theological scientific question in
real time, like literally in real

time, and, no one knows what the
implications are, but obviously it's

a conversation that will continue for,
until we're able to solve this problem.

R' Steven Gotlib: Yeah, I think so.

And, I'll even expand that and just
say to me, as, someone who is deeply

religious but also deeply engaged in the
philosophical and scientific literature

and conversations, seeing that all three
sides are asking the same questions

about these things, even if they have
different methodologies and different

ways of viewing it and different ways
that they put it in conversation with

their broader worldviews, the fact
that these are fundamentally the same

questions that are being asked about
the same literal phenomenon, the same

thing that we experience, that actually
gives me a tremendous amount of hope,

not only for, where things develop
writ large, but for, what religion

in general and Judaism in particular
can offer to these conversations.

Because I do think once we acknowledge
we are talking about the same

thing in different ways, that makes
the conversation not only so much

more relevant across the board,
but so much more real in this

deep, this really matters sense.

Because at that point it's no longer
a thought experiment, it really is

trying to figure out how does this
affect our lives and what does it mean?

And I think that's an
incredibly powerful, possibility

Rabbi David Silverstein: Yeah,
just to show you how the beauty of

interdisciplinary dialogue, I was
listening to a podcast with Russ Roberts.

He had on Sam Harris, and they
were talking about free will.

And Sam Harris was giving
his sort of whole spiel about

free will being an illusion.

And then Russ Roberts quoted
the Meishi Loaj, right?

Who has this idea that
everything is an illusion, right?

I think he said

something like

R' Steven Gotlib: How cold it
is when I am a few years when I

Rabbi David Silverstein:
Exactly, a few years back.

And in this great moment Sam Harris
responds by saying, "Wow, I love that."

And I felt oh my God, like Sam
Harris, the Ishbitzer, and Russ

Roberts coming together, I feel like
this is one of the greatest days

R' Steven Gotlib: And I've
been seeing this more and more.

There's a great two-volume book on
basically neuroscience and how the

brain functions, and how the brain
interacts with different parts within

it, written by s- as far as I can
tell, a Christian British thinker.

His last name is certainly not
Jewish in any meaningful way.

And then suddenly after you've read,
1,500 pages, in his last chapter he

talks about the idea of the sacred, and
he's quoting the Arizal and Heschel.

Rabbi David Silverstein: Yeah.

Amazing.

Amazing.

R' Steven Gotlib: We're
seeing this more and more.

It's not happening less

Rabbi David Silverstein: Exactly.

Amazing.

Okay.

Rav Steven, thank you so much
again for coming on the podcast.

This was an amazing conversation.

Just to reiterate if you're interested
in reading more about this, I

think the best place to look is Rav
Steven's article on this, which is

an entry point to this conversation.

You can just Google Rabbi
Steve Gottlieb 18Forty or Rabbi

Steve Gottlieb consciousness.

You can get it very easily.

Also, I would highly encourage everybody
to subscribe to Rav Steven's Substack.

It's an amazing Substack that not
only has book reviews, but very

interesting essays and reflections on
the different issues of contemporary

Jewish thought, Jewish theology.

So Rav Steven, thank you so
much for coming on the podcast.

This was great.

R' Steven Gotlib: Thank you
so much for having me back.

It was a pleasure.

Rabbi David Silverstein:
Thanks so much . Amazing.

Thank you for joining us on The Curious
Jew, a podcast of Yeshivat Orayta!

Subscribe to make sure you
catch our next conversation.