Lights On

by Annaka Harris

"Consciousness might be the greatest mystery of the universe, and Annaka Harris is our best detective... You'll never think about what happens between your ears in the same way again." -Adam Grant, #1 New York Times bestselling author of Think Again

"Follow along as Annaka Harris interviews (and graciously challenges) the world's leading scientists on the nature of consciousness... Magnificent." -Susan Cain, #1 New York Times bestselling author of Quiet

As accessible as it is awe-inspiring, this exclusive audio documentary by New York Times bestselling author Annaka Harris explores the unknown corners of consciousness and the cosmos.

Is consciousness a fundamental building block of the universe, like gravity? Can humans develop new senses through neuroscience? And can artificial intelligence ever truly replicate the subjective experience of being conscious?

Join Annaka Harris as she calls on distinguished experts in science and philosophy to find answers to today's most perplexing questions about our minds and the universe at large. Through interviews with thinkers such as Brian Greene, David Eagleman, Anil Seth, Carlo Rovelli, and more, Harris presents diverse perspectives on whether consciousness could be considered a fundamental aspect of the universe.

This revolutionary idea challenges traditional neuroscience and quantum physics, shattering what we think we know about ourselves and scientific phenomena as foundational as space and time. Lights On also questions how a new understanding of consciousness might affect our perception of existence, our notions of free will, the development of technology, and the future of scientific discovery. In a follow-up to her seminal book, Conscious, this audio-original documentary offers beginners and experts alike a chance to unravel some of humankind's most enduring puzzles. Where Conscious presents new questions about felt experience, Lights On seeks to find the answers.

"Only Annaka Harris could take one of the greatest mysteries of science and make it not only an adventure but also deeply relevant to everyday human flourishing." -Dan Harris, author of the New York Times bestseller 10% Happier and host of the 10% Percent Happier podcast

Narrated by Annaka Harris; featuring Jay Shapiro, Susan Blackmore, Sean Carroll, Daniel Chamovitz, David Eagleman, Sascha Fink, Adam Frank, Philip Goff, Joseph Goldstein, Brian Greene, Donald Hoffman, Patrick House, Christof Koch, Janna Levin, George Musser, Carlo Rovelli, Zoë Schlanger, Anil Seth, Lee Smolin, Sara Imari Walker

Produced and directed by Jay Shapiro and Annaka Harris

Genres: Nonfiction, Science, Audiobook, Philosophy, Neuroscience, Psychology, Meditation

Audible Audio

Published April 8, 2025

About the author

Annaka Harris is the author of "CONSCIOUS: A Brief Guide to the Fundamental Mystery of the Mind" (HarperCollins, June 2019). She is the author of the children's book "I Wonder," a collaborator on the "Mindful Games Activity Cards," by Susan Kaiser Greenland, and her work has appeared in The New York Times. She is a consultant for science writers and a volunteer mindfulness teacher for the Inner Kids organization. She is married to the neuroscientist and author Sam Harris.

Reviews

[Stetson · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was an extremely professionally produced audio documentary that follows Annaka Harris' study of what the nature of the universe tells us about consciousness. She conducts a number of interviews with academics in the fields of physics and philosophy and the debriefs after each with her producer. Harris is the wife of the famous podcaster Sam Harris who frequently explores consciousness as a topic. For those who are fans of Harris' podcast, they may find it interesting to compare his perspective and his wife's.

I found the series pretty frustrating. Harris very clear has her endpoint in mind and is mostly crafting an argument rather than exploring the topic agnostically. Additionally, most of the actual engagement with the topics is superficial and sloppy. There's quite a bit of speculative dorm room nonsense and very little mooring in actual science, especially the science that would be relevant to how consciousness is created (aka what is happening in the human brain).

Quite early in the series, Harris appears to incidentally or purposefully dispense with actual physicalist explanations of consciousness so that she can play footsy with panpsychism for hours. She does her best to avoid using the term panpsychism and tries to distinguish her claims from more stereotypical woo versions of panpsychism, but it's still panpsychism dressed in different clothes. And unfortunately she thinks the biggest threat to her ideas is the fundamental nature of time in the universe rather than the obvious fact that conscious experience is dependent on having a functioning brain. There is no recorded experience of consciousness in brain dead people.

The claim that is repeated over and over is that "consciousness is fundamental" by which she means consciousness is an inherent and irreducible part of the fabric of the universe. She bounces between saying she's agnostic about this position and then championing it - only to of course champion it at the end of the work. She never really entertains alternative explanations and only very latterly sees how very similar the question of subjectivity emerging from physical processes is to the question of moving from inert matter to biology. She very flippantly dismisses the idea that consciousness is actually doing something adaptive for humans. She tries an end-run around this claim by pointing to a physiological response (fear) that is known to be regulated by lower aspects of the nervous system even though people will explain it as a conscious experience. However, she never attempts to explain how non-conscious processes alone could enable someone to plan for the future, cooperate with others over time, or execute other higher-order human cognitive abilities. It's unremarkable to point out that much of human behavior in farmed out to unconscious brain activity that latter is assigned an explanation by the conscious mind. This doesn't somehow eliminate consciousness from doing anything functional. Moreover, if this was the case why are human brains always conscious (a reverse zombie problem - by the way this is a [silly] challenge to physicalism she did not engage). Evolution is thrifty. If it's not doing anything for us, it wouldn't stick around.

I don't want to seem eager to dismiss scientific research on consciousness. I think it is a worthwhile endeavor. I also think it is something that the science of the brain will be able to explain better than theoretical physics.

Disclosure: I received this in a pre-publication audio version through Netgalley.

[Morgan Blackledge · Rating 5 out of 5]

Annika Harris’s thoughtful and innovative audio book/interview podcast mashup (a documentary in the authors words) exploring the possibility of consciousness as being (somehow) not an emergent property of brains, or complex information processing, but rather as a fundamental aspect of nature.

More fundamental (in the end) than space/time.

This POV is commonly referred to as “Panpsychism” although Harris is (rightly) uncomfortable with that term/construct. And is as such (also rightly) very apprehensive to be associated with it.

One of the things I very much appreciated about this program is Harris’s willingness to pursue this (ostensibly imparting and potentially pseudoscientific) idea, without being overly skeptical or ironic or cynical, and without being certain or convinced by it either. That along with her willingness to engage some of today’s most influential/prominent (or at least well known) science communicators (including Brian Green, Sean Carroll, and David Eagleman) from a BUNCH of different disciplines (including physics, chemistry, philosophy, cognitive science, neuroscience, etc.) on an idea that most serious intellectuals and scientists would TOTALLY blow off as either lame, kooky, or outside the purview of science.

I have to applaud Harris for being willing to think out loud in public. And for her willingness to have her ideas, intuitions and assumptions challenged in so many different ways.

#Fearless.

Although I am no fan of David Chalmers and his “hard problem” of consciousness ( a concept Harris is stubbornly wedded to). And I am definitely not convinced by the Panpsychist adjacent theory that consciousness is a fundamental (as opposed to emergent) property of nature (as Harris intuits and “60/40” believes). I am much more willing to engage with these ideas after listening to this program.

In sum.

I loved this.

I couldn’t break away from it.

I wish there was way more stuff like this out there.

Meaning: I wish more people would embark on books and intellectual projects like this without having a forgone conclusion, and with the willingness to play and explore and engage in productive, interesting conversations with seriously cool people that have very different perspectives.

If what I’m describing sounds basically like an interview podcast. It kind of isn’t it isn’t. I think this is a really cool hybridization of an audiobook and a podcast. Harris stays fairly narrow on focused on this one topic. She goes to great lengths to tie all the interviews in to the topic, and to change/upgrade/evolve her thinking as the program progresses.

Another thing that was really fucking great about this program was that it cited additional reading at every juncture. As such, my (must read) reading list swelled (by a bunch) with every new interview/chapter/subject. That maybe a GREAT index for the value of a given book (e.g. how many new books do you want to read as a result of reading this one?). If we use that as an index. This program scores HIGH.

Ironically, I can think of another (equal and opposite) index for the value of a book. That being, if it makes you never ever wanna read another book on the subject (as in, this is the final word. Nothing more to add, and it just cant be said better). So I guess I’ll have to think through this idea a bit more.

But that will have to do for now.

Anyway.

LOVED IT!!!

5/5 ⭐️

[Daniel Hageman · Rating 5 out of 5]

The audio-documentary style of this book made it as though one is listening to a series of podcast episodes strung together to create a full narrative without becoming redundant. I was unsure what more Annaka had to add to this space after her first book on the topic, 'Conscious', which I would still recommend to anyone prior to pursuing this one. The boundaries that were pushed in the conversations here, as well as the novel style, made it a true joy to listen and learn from.

[Peter · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was a tricky one to rate because most of the discussions were genuinely interesting and informative in isolation. However, I found the author's approach extremely problematic on multiple levels.

Putting forth a scientific theory by cherry-picking arguments from (occasionally dubious) scientific sources was the first major red flag. Recontextualizing the common term, consciousness, in a very narrow and uncommon way to posit a completely unfalsifiable and unpredictive theory was another.

There was simply nothing convincing from either a scientific or philosophical perspective. For example, the incredibly poor argument conflating the potentially questionable fundamental nature of space and time with the completely unrelated and unproven nature of consciousness. Another was admitting to how we can't trust our intuitions on such "fundamental" questions, yet referencing personal experiences and intuitions on multiple occasions. All of this ultimately seemed like the only basis they had for this neo-panpsychist model because it definitely wasn't scientific rigour or philosophical reasoning.

Again, I have to stress that the actual conversations on the various sub-topics were interesting and I'd honestly like to listen to the full versions of most of them. Despite the rating, I think this was worth a read/listen for those interested in the topic of consciousness and who have a strong understanding of modern scientific and philosophical landscapes.

[Michael Janes · Rating 3 out of 5]

[Audiobook] I love Annaka and her previous work. This was just as well made but for whatever reason I had the hardest time concentrating and listening for more than about 15 min at a time before growing bored and/or confused.

I ultimately find her journey and discoveries convincing. I will likely re-listen at some point. I’m betting this is actually a 4/5 star book for me but my brain just wasn’t in the right state to handle it at this time.

[Chentao · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author’s ego is too prominent throughout the text.

It seems to me that Mrs. Harris’s grasp of physics and neuroscience doesn’t quite match the ambition she brings to her arguments. Too often, individuals like her attempt to draw conclusions through analogies—without fully understanding either the source or the subject of the analogy. That’s exactly how I felt when she invoked spacetime to support her views on the fundamental nature of consciousness, assuming such a property even exists. It came across as misguided and even absurd.

That said, I did find the conversations intellectually stimulating and thought-provoking. I just didn’t appreciate the way her ego permeated the discussion.

[Liam · Rating 2 out of 5]

A very good podcast appearance led me to buy this but I was super disappointed by its lack of depth and effort

The production feels like she’s just recorded a few zoom calls and caught prominent speakers at conferences to discuss panpsychism (a title she tries to rebrand as something hard scientific akin to physics).

Annaka presents herself like a scientist but she already has her conviction and is using the conversations for validation and legitimacy rather than to develop or changing her theory.

What could have been a really interesting philosophical work ended up being low effort pseudo science unfortunately. Annaka’s conviction and background in meditation could have been much better spent discussing the nature of experience with other philosophers rather than trying to convince physicists of some new field of physical law to prove she’s right.

To summarise: I was bothered by the low effort production and implicit arrogance in Annaka’s pseudoscientific approach, what could have been a far more interesting book felt like a missed opportunity.

[Chelsea Elton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow, what do I even say about this? Presented as an audio documentary, Annaka proceeds to lay out her understanding of a concept in physics or philosophy or mathematics as she probes into whether consciousness is fundamental. She interviews so many fascinating scientists and intellectuals on subjects such as space and time, the self, whether plants are conscious (she’s convinced me!), memory, and so on.

While so much of the discussions sailed right over my head (I want to re-listen after letting this percolate for a bit), there were moments where I felt super engaged and was somewhat following the path being laid. A few times I felt the sensation of what Annaka describes as apōleia—where you lose the grasp you had on preconceived beliefs and your paradigm shifts or opens up.

I really enjoyed this and look forward to going through her notes on the different interviewees—I want to read what they’re putting out!

[Shelby Anne Taylor · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was somehow both intellectually stimulating and underwhelming at the same time? Usually my existentialism can be soothed by conversations like the ones here (and I did enjoy the journalistic/audio documentary format) but there was something about Harris' approach and attitude toward her theory that was kind of difficult to engage with... I don't think listeners need to be proficient in quantum physics or neuroscience for this to be accessible, but if those aren't subject matter areas you're already drawn to, then this would probably feel boring and out of reach if not just plain obnoxious.

[Cara Ravasio · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading/listening to this was super interesting to me on both a personal and professional level. It has definitely changed the way I think about consciousness and deepened my understanding of fundamental physics, and just got me really excited in general! I recommend it to anyone interested in big, abstract thinking, but be warned: it is dense. A lot of it went over my head on the first read so I look forward to coming back to this in the future!

[Joshua Blum · Rating 4 out of 5]

The audiobook is like being at a dinner party with a bunch of people way smarter than yourself. Most of it went over my head as someone w/out a formal science background, but a lot of really poignant tidbits and metaphors stuck.

I really respect the producers for presenting leading voices from science and philosophy that both confirm and push back against her thesis. I think her ideas will stay with me for a long time! Her bias definitely comes through in editing and most conversations, but I found myself rooting for it to be true anyway.

[Luke · Rating 2 out of 5]

The author(s) of this work are between a rock and a hard place. Right from the beginning we establish that consciousness is something that is not something that can be sensed from the outside and that our intuitive notion that consciousness is "doing something", rather than an epiphenomenon, might be mistaken. The examples given at the beginning (locked in syndrome, meditative noticing of passive thoughts, the delayed stimulus experiment - I find this latter one very interesting!) are presented as reasons to at least question this "more intuitive" account.

Fine. This would all be well and good if an alternative more scientific account were presented as a counterpoint. But for the most part that is not what happens. Sure, we get some other interesting scientific discoveries and theories (The plant that can "see" and mimic over distances, the many world interpretation), but these are presented just as uncritically as those initial "intuitive" questionable conclusions.

Take the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Harris discusses this with Scott Carroll (notably, we do not get an alternative view or a critique of MWI, which is hardly the only quantum mechanics theory around) and ultimately comes to the conclusion that MWI makes a good deal of sense because it preserves continuity of consciousness. Sure, I guess that's a point in its favor. never mind that MWI presents an entirely far-fetched account of every quantum mechanical interaction in the universe, the so-called "universe splitting" which requires a much more in-depth explanation which is never presented. To me, MWI poses many more questions than it solves, and I am very surprised by its favor.

But really the point is not whether MWI is right or wrong, The point is that it's viewed favorably because it is intuitive, It aligns with other notions and (arguably) forms a single gestalt account of reality. But isn't this the problem presented at the beginning? Why are we relying on our puny brain intuition here when, according to Harris, this was something to guard against? Why do we care whether these theories "align" with Annaka Harris's thoughts on the topic? On one hand I appreciate her willingness to consider all possibilities, even unintuitive ones, but on the other she never really takes a stand and espouses a particular theory. "This is the theory and this is the evidence". We just get a lot of "this makes sense to me" from Harris, which at best comes off as unconvincing and at worst sounds in unwarranted and biased.

This problem is everywhere throughout the audiobook, and it's why I say Harris's caught between a rock and a hard place. either she is saying something very anodyne and uncontroversial (we don't perceive reality as it is for example we don't receive the empty space in the atoms that make up a rock) or something totally ungrounded (maybe all of reality is an illusion projected by some base ground truth which we can't perceive, and our perceptions of reality are more akin to an interface with "icons" we interact with, and maybe evolution isn't trying to give an advantage to the consciousness that perceives reality most accurately, but rather is performing an inexhaustible search amongst all possible experiences - these latter points are from her talk with Don Hoffman, probably the most unhinged guest in the book).

This is the core problem with discussing something we can't "do science" on. Harris DOES propose a sort of "experiential science" that might answer these kinds of fundamental questions, but not very much time is devoted to this, probably because we are nowhere near performing the kinds of experiments that would get us close to answering these sorts of questions. But instead of trying to make a dent in that, something that might actually advance her cause, most of the book is just ruminations on "intuition", and is portrayed very inconsistently. This makes the book particularly frustrating and not very informative.

There are a few discussions that I liked, mostly the plant stuff, the split brain studies, and the holographic principle stuff. But I don't see a ton of value in the rest of the book.

[Siriusly · Rating 4 out of 5]

More of a podcast series presented as an audiobook.

Not sure how to rate this because I can’t get past a few things that I noticed about Annaka Harris. On one hand she’s intelligent and presents a phenomenal and thought-provoking case about consciousness being fundamental and all of that. On the other hand, she seemingly comes off to me as if she’s not sciencing 100% properly some of the time. When putting forth a scientific idea or hypothesis, one does not look for all the ways to prove your case. One is supposed to try to debunk one’s own hypothesis and collect evidence from both sides. Her confirmation bias is a bit off-putting. During one chapter, she seemed to take great joy in telling Brian Greene that he’s wrong in his interpretation of consciousness. BRIAN GREENE. Yes, the renowned physicist and string theorist.

In the end, Annaka presents her information convincingly and speaks with many well-respected scientists of all sorts. That’s something that I appreciate.

[Nicole Obert · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's hard to stop thinking about this, even a week after finishing, and I find myself floating the concept of consciousness as fundamental to friends and family... some of whom are likely to tune in on publication.
This is framed as an audio-documentary and I wasn't sure about the format, but ended up loving it. I enjoyed hearing from the scientists and philosophers themselves in the interviews, and I think I felt more connected to the author than I might have through prose.
There is a lot of depth to the concept explored, and I'm sure I could spend a year researching everything presented in a chapter, but I think the depth and breadth of the book as a whole was a Goldilocks masterpiece.
If theories of consciousness are your jam, or if you're just intrigued, absolutely pick this up! Really informative, left me curious, and I haven't stopped thinking about it.

Grateful to Netgalley for the opportunity to listen and review!

[Darcia Helle · Rating 3 out of 5]

LIGHTS ON offered some interesting points, and I found some sections engaging. However, overall I was disappointed in the content. I felt like the author wrote with an agenda, picking theories and studies to push her preformed opinions, while ignoring other research and concepts.

*Thanks to Macmillan Audio for the free audiobook download.*

[Keith · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very good exploration of the Hard Problem of Consciousness. Rather than being a written book, Annaka Harris presents an “audio documentary” featuring her grappling with fundamental questions about the nature of reality. She interviews a variety of impressive minds, including theoretical physicists and experts on meditation. I recommend going to the author’s website, where she provides notes on each chapter of the book:

Chapter 1: “The Mystery, An Introduction”

“In this introductory chapter of LIGHTS ON, I provide the audience with a guided tour of the neuroscience and philosophy of consciousness. It is, in part, a review of the material in my book Conscious, but my hope is that even listeners who are familiar with my book and the literature in consciousness studies will enjoy going back to the basics—and might even discover a slightly new perspective.”

Chapter 2: “Is Consciousness Fundamental?”

“Could treating consciousness as a fundamental property of the universe help us better understand any of the current theories of quantum gravity? Or, alternately, do any of the established understandings in fundamental physics rule out the possibility that consciousness is fundamental? Is this even a type of knowledge we can ever obtain? Will we be able to design scientific experiments that can provide evidence to support one conclusion over another?
In Chapter 2, I speak with philosopher Philip Goff and astrophysicist Adam Frank about the implications of the controversial question: Is consciousness fundamental?”

Chapter 3: “The Dance”

“Philosophy and science share a common commitment: seeking truth, along with a willingness to upend one’s intuitions in order to accept an answer that might feel uncomfortable or counterintuitive. The relationship between philosophy and science is like a dance—philosophy poses questions that help steer the science, and science makes discoveries that inform or overturn the philosophy.
In order to think more deeply about the hypothesis that consciousness is fundamental and help guide the philosophy, I needed to better understand the physics and the different interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in Chapter 3, I speak to three physicists—Sean Carroll, Brian Greene, and Janna Levin.”

Chapter 4: “Plants and Parasites”

“Observing plant behavior helps us investigate our assumptions about consciousness from a new angle. Most of us share the intuition that plants aren’t conscious. But when we look more closely at plant behaviors that fall into the surprisingly similar behavioral categories we might call pain, fear, or even love, we can ask ourselves why we think consciousness is necessary for certain behavior in animals, but not in plants. Is it possible that any processing of information, and subsequent behavior, in plants is accompanied by felt experience? Or, alternately, perhaps we don’t need consciousness to perform human behavior in the ways we have always assumed…?
In Chapter 4, I talk to Daniel Chamovitz, Zoë Schlanger, and Patrick House about the wonderful world of plants and parasites.”

Chapter 5: “The Self”

“Most people can understand the illusion of self intellectually, but it’s another thing to grasp it on an experiential level—to know what it’s like to move through the world without the illusion. It is, in fact, possible to be aware of all of the usual things (sights, sounds, even thoughts) without feeling like the subject of all of those things or like a “self” who experiences those things. But this is something that’s quite difficult to communicate through language, which fails us when we’re trying to describe an experience to someone who hasn’t had it before.
In Chapter 5, I walk the audience through my personal experience of attending a silent meditation retreat and dropping the illusion of self in meditation. I then speak with two neuroscientists, Anil Seth and David Eagleman, about the experience of self at the level of the brain.”

Chapter 6: “From Signals to Sensations”

“Tools like microscopes uncover vast worlds that were previously hidden from us—we could hardly grasp the reality of invisible organisms before the microscope allowed us to perceive them, let alone the realms that have been revealed through telescopes and particle colliders. What tools might we discover in the future to help us reach beyond the familiar experimental neuroscience that Anil Seth and others have relied on so far?
We have many intuitions for the laws of physics because we feel them at work through our senses. In Chapter 6, I contemplate where sensory addition work, like David Eagleman’s, might lead. We also explore the ways science might expand in order to address questions about consciousness, as well as about fields, forces, and matter we don’t naturally perceive.”

Chapter 7: “Memory, Meditation, and Mind”

“In Chapter 7, we continue to peel back the layers of the construction of “self'” in the context of neuroscience. I focus on the role memory plays in both psychological continuity and in the feeling of being a “subject” of conscious experiences. This chapter also presents a deeper exploration of meditation practice in an attempt to get a clearer picture of our direct experience of consciousness and, thus, a more accurate framework for questions about how far down in nature consciousness runs.”

Chapter 8: “Space and Time”

“When I first began to wonder if certain experiences in meditation were providing any hints of deeper truths about the nature of reality, the fact that I was even contemplating this came as a complete surprise to me. I had always considered any type of personal, subjective experience to be more or less useless as a tool for probing scientific truths—not necessarily for research in psychology and neuroscience, but certainly for fundamental physics. Through my work with neuroscientists over the years, I had learned just how indirectly we’re in contact with the outside world. In fact, many of the things that seem like the most direct channels to reality, as we’ve seen, turn out to be what Anil Seth rightfully refers to as “controlled hallucinations.”
But there’s a hitch. Strangely, when we place careful attention on our moment-to-moment experience in a very discipled way, some of our perceptions—including those of space, time, and self—actually begin to shift or drop out altogether and, surprisingly, our window onto reality can be transformed into a more accurate one, at least in some cases.
As I followed the advances in quantum physics—learning about theories that suggest space and time are emergent rather than fundamental—I was reminded of some of my and others’ timeless / spaceless experiences of consciousness in meditation. In Chapter 8, I become curious about the avenues we might explore as we address this new scientific question: If space isn’t a fundamental aspect of the universe, what is it that’s giving rise to the domain we call space in the first place? And just as our experience of color is a mapping of light frequencies, what might our experience of space be mapping for us as it relates to the underlying reality?”

Chapter 9: “Consciousness as Fundamental”

“At the heart of science, we face an utterly perplexing question: What is physics describing? What is it fundamentally about? What are the natural laws, laws of? From the perspective of physics, the fundamental stuff of the universe still eludes us, especially if we try to fit the findings of quantum mechanics into a traditional conception of matter and energy. From the perspective of neuroscience, we’ve learned that the world “out there” is not a direct perception, and our perceptions may have even evolved to hide the truth from us, as Donald Hoffman argues. And then from the perspective of the philosophy of mind, my own research, reading, and further thinking leads me to believe that consciousness is more likely a fundamental property than an emergent one. Could this different approach help us answer the age-old question? And how would the sciences even attempt to move forward with the hypothesis that consciousness is fundamental? How might we conceivably acquire evidence or validate it experimentally?
In this chapter, I review two emerging scientific theories that give me hope—Donald Hoffman’s “conscious realism,” which places consciousness at a fundamental level, and Sara Walker and Lee Cronin’s “Assembly Theory,” which is a theory about life, not consciousness, but which I think has implications for consciousness being fundamental. These, and other, creative and out-of-the box theories stand a chance of leading us into a new era of scientific exploration.”

Chapter 10: “The Future of Science”

“In this concluding chapter, we drop in on a talk I gave at a 2023 conference organized by Philip Goff and Andrei Buckareff at Marist College titled “Treating Consciousness as Fundamental,” in which I present alongside other Lights On guests: Lee Smolin, Donald Hoffman, Sean Carroll, and Philip Goff. I describe the evolution of my thinking over the course of working on this documentary series, and I illustrate my most current view of a universe in which consciousness is fundamental. I elaborate further on ways we might expand our methods of scientific experiment, while laying out my prediction about a scientific paradigm shift that is possibly underway.”

***************************************************************************


[Image: Book Cover]

Citation:
Harris, A. (2025). Lights on: How understanding consciousness helps us understand the universe (audio documentary). Macmillan Audio. https://www.audible.com/pd/Lights-On-...

Title: Lights On: How Understanding Consciousness Helps Us Understand the Universe
Author(s): Annaka Harris
Year: 2025
Genre: Nonfiction - Audio Documentary: Philosophy, Neuroscience, & Physics
Length: 11 hours & 9 minutes
Date(s) read: 5/22/25 - 5/26/25
Book 108 in 2025
***************************************************************************

[Alex Ast · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a brilliant audio-documentary asking the fundamental question: is consciousness fundamental to reality? Annaka Harris explores this question by interviewing some of the brightest minds in philosophy and science today and she slowly begins to answer that question with a yes. Annaka is a material physicalist who simply defines consciousness as our "felt, lived experience" and thinks science isn't quite ready to grapple with our subjective inner reality but thinks it can in the future with what she calls "experiential science."
This book was extremely fascinating and took many different approaches as to how consciousness manifests in the world and how various fields of study go about explaining it. For example, she talks about how recent developments in plant biology illustrate that some plants are capable of thought like the parasitic dodder vine or Venus fly trap. Or how spacetime may not be as fundamental to physics as we initially thought due to the quantum revolution and how reality may in fact be a hologram, a mere projection of how consciousness manifests itself. And that what we think of as the Self is merely an illusion and that our conscious awareness is the only thing we can be certain is true, like Descartes declared with his cogito ego sum. Then she explores how our sensations of the world often provides us with better accuracy and truth in certain instances, like our gut instinct for example, and explains how consciousness plays a role in that. She also dived into whether or not meditation can provide some guidance as to whether or not it can help us understand consciousness and she thinks it can. There is so much more she uncovered but those were the main highlights for me.
However, she still has some hesitations holding her back from adopting the panpyschist position 100%. She often jokes she is just 60-40 or 65-35 in the position for good reason. She doesn't think that a rock is conscious for example, but that base particle matter has some element of consciousness and intentionality at its core. She thinks there are levels as to how consciousness manifests itself, and the more complex the organism or matter, the more complex in which consciousness is exhibited. If I am correct in her understanding, she does not think that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon that develops spontaneously out of complexity, but is rather fundamental, a core aspect of reality that in nature is a higher order first principle.
I highly recommend this audio-documentary to anyone seeking to gain a better understanding of consciousness and how it interacts with reality. It gave me greater confidence in my own panpyschist position because it is increasingly becoming a more valid and plausible position within the mainstream scientific community due to so many researchers studying this idea now. This was also super well produced and despite the heavy and brainy topics being discussed, she made it super approachable for anyone to listen without a prior background in philosophy of mind and science and made it an enlightening joy to listen to.

[Justin Norman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Given how accessible Annaka's book "Conscious" was, I was not expecting the gigantic, heady leap that this podcast represents as it explores the question, "Is consciousness fundamental?" It's packaged well, as a documentary about the author's journey toward answering that question, and that framework is the main thing that kept me following along.

The conversations with various authors, scientists, philosophers, and academics were a hit-or-miss experience for me, with some of them being wildly fascinating while others completely lost as they dove into arguments over terminology or mathematics. The interjections between these conversations by the producer (filmmaker Jay Shapiro) and the author seem to acknowledge that certain interview segments might be overwhelming or confusing to listeners, and Jay himself seems comically lost at times.

The topic is fascinating, but I feel like this would have benefited from being cut down significantly, with more time dedicated to the implications of Annaka's theory being true. She gets into this for a few paragraphs at the end, but I wish there were more. Despite my frequent feelings of being lost (and sometimes just not caring much), I'm glad someone decided to tackle this topic in a format that's at least a bit friendly to casual listeners.

[Brahm · Rating 4 out of 5]

Is consciousness a fundamental property of the universe? Harris doesn't know for certain, but she explores the possibility with physicists and philosophers in this audio documentary.

The pacing was just about perfect, bringing the layperson listener along for a fairly complex discussion. I have to admit I lost the thread about halfway through but that was likely due to distracted/non-continuous listening.

[Hailey Van Dyk · Rating 5 out of 5]

I absolutely loved listening to this fascinating topic. Some of it felt a bit over my head but I feel like I agree with a lot of what she’s getting at. More of this please!

[Kristen · Rating 3 out of 5]

There are some things that I enjoyed very much in the series of conversations here; I’ve come away with a handful of other books of interest. I also think that Ms. Harris has a curiosity that is genuine and infectious — she’s enjoyable to listen to.

Yet while I appreciate that curiosity, she doesn’t have the kind of science/mathematics background that you need to be able to firmly tackle these topics. There are several times where her guests become audibly frustrated by what I suspect they feel like is a bit of woo-woo. It feels much more like she has an idea in search of support rather than a question in search of an answer.

[Derek Ouyang · Rating 1 out of 5]

I feel an obligation to be harsh here because I'm a fan of her partner, because I care a lot about the topic, and because I thought her previous book Conscious was on much firmer ground. This book turned me off in two fundamental ways:

1. Some attention is given to Chalmers' philosophical zombie concept, but then Harris proceeds with her producer to stage clearly scripted conversations with each other in every chapter that are uncanny-bordering-on-painful, and arguably a better illustration of "bodies lacking any conscious experience" than Chalmers has ever come up with on his own. (Some particularly scripted NYT Daily episodes come close.) Anybody who was involved in the making or greenlighting of this audiobook is either in on a brilliant joke, or completely oblivious to their own intellectual bankruptcy on the topic of conscious experience. If you're trying to understand consciousness but you can't appreciate that your scripted conversations in your book on conscious sound so literally like robots without consciousness as to be off-putting to conscious listeners, either you or I have lost the plot.

2. On the substantive search for a theory of consciousness, I feel like Harris has also clearly lost the plot when she goes into the deep end of believing that consciousness is fundamental in everything. That might be a legitimate intellectual position to have, given it is shared by some of the scientists and philosophers she talks to, but a combination of the aforementioned faux pas and the general sense a reader gets in all of these conversations that Harris is way in over her head on these conversations, and often engaged more in an act of aesthetic connect-the-dots than formal reasoning, serve to severely degrade my confidence in her conclusions. In fact, she admits herself at one point that some of her thoughts on one of these topics manifested as "decontextualized pseudo-profundities"; I couldn't really put it better myself. See also, case in point, the plant episode when Harris asks the scientist about decision-making in plants, then the guy gives a completely unrelated answer about how he was wrong about plant hearing, then the interview ends and the producer and Harris rejoice about how quotable that last section was. I just simply had to change my mind entirely at that point on whether Harris has any authority on this deeply important subject, and I fear that her meandering journey, paraded before a large audience, borders on the kind of irresponsibility of someone like Joe Rogan on a different kind of misinformation acquiescence, meaning she could be actually moving the field of consciousness studies a few steps backward with her platform.

All that being said, forcing myself to get through this gave me a lot of time to come to terms with my own views on consciousness, and perhaps with some ironic gratitude, I would say that I am now all the more confident in placing myself on the complete opposite corner. In short, we have consciousness (what it's like to be X), the experience of a continuous and contained self, and the experience of free will all clearly at play. And I'm actually in agreement with the author and many theorists that the latter two, free will and the self, are ultimately illusions, despite how much they feel to us to be real. So why is nobody in these discussions willing to make the final logical flick of Occam's Razor here, and argue that consciousness itself is also just an illusion, i.e., it's just entirely emergent from a certain biological and/or computational structure? Yes, I know it feels "so real" as to have to be fundamental, but if we're willing to sacrifice two out of three on the same terms, why not all three? I see nothing seriously wrong with retaining our moral and ethical projects in the face of consciousness being an illusion, and I now look forward to the first writer who helps to reset us in this direction.

[Adriana · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's fascinating and complex. So complex that I had a hard time following it despite the author's many attempts at simplifying it for readers like me. It's not just the philosophical conundrums, it's complex physics that might or might not also apply and have interwoven mechanics with what could be considered consciousness, if consciousness does, in fact, exist. So yeah, complex.

That said, I did greatly enjoy the format of presenting most of the theories and ideas as interviews with those who originated them. It makes things slightly more accessible. Although the accents did, at times, pose a bit of a challenge. Just had to rewind and pay even closer attention a couple of times.

In the end, I walked away with a million questions and a mile-long reading list that I'm worried will be even harder to comprehend. But I'm glad I read it because it is truly fascinating stuff, even when you don't understand most of it.

Happy thanks to NetGalley and Macmillan Audio for the listen!

[Jakob · Rating 2 out of 5]

I don't think I got it. The question is interesting and quite a few of the anecdotes as well. I in particular enjoyed the magnetic north experiment, where participants developed a "new sense" by carrying a vibrating belt.
In other parts it became a slog for me where the author tried attempt after attempt to land the point that a fundamental consciousness is a sane and grounded idea. Sorry, I wanted to be convinced but left unconvinced.

[Alison · Rating 1 out of 5]

I really struggled with this book, it was just not going in my poor soggy brain, and as much as the premise made me excited to read this book, and the people that she interviews, the concepts and way they are presented just wouldn't gel. Sigh.

[Laura · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting parts but I felt there was too much open ended debate with scientists and not enough attempt to summarize or bring the pieces together.

[Rens · Rating 3 out of 5]

Harris’ audio documentary “Lights On” is a collection of interviews with experts in physics, general science and philosophy, about the question “can consciousness be fundamental?” The interviews and interviewees are fascinating and drive home the fact that consciousness is not at all well understood, that the hard problem of consciousness is not generally considered solved or easy, and that the thoughts of thinkers on this topic diverge wildly.

The documentary is loosely structured, which is not strange since Harris’ views on this topic seem loosely structured themselves, also to her own account. Unfortunately, that makes the work seem more like a series of podcasts with a layman podcast host, than a book with a purpose and properly thought-out thesis. Many of the talks with physicists give the impression that Harris does not fully understand the topic at hand, which doesn’t seem to stand in her way of favouring heavily some theories more than other (for example, space-time being emergent, or the many dimensions of string theory, seem intuitively right to Harris). At the same time, intuitions that she does not share (about the self being real, or reality being “just” these four fundamental dimensions) are dismissed quite easily, and are seen as illusions that one should not rely on.

This lack of purpose bleeds into the discussion with physicists, making it at some points hard to follow, since we don’t know why they are there: I don’t know how anything of the string theory interviews is related to the question at hand. This is a shame, since these discussions are the gem of this documentary.

The last chapter contains Harris’ “experimental science”, ways to verify whether consciousness is fundamental or not (thus Harris seems to claim that the Hard problem is not in fact hard). This includes a future device that can transfer lived experience from one being to another. Harris (I may have made some transcription errors, emphasis mine):

I can also a way to envision a future in where we can communicate with other systems, such as plants, in a way that might even convince us of their sentience, in the same way that we’re now convinced of the sentience of mice.
But, the truth is that even if the pilot could gain an intuitive sense of an air plane, or if thousands of scientists could tap into a redwood forest, for that matter, that would not necessarily tell us whether there’s a conscious experience associated with those things when they’re not being processed by a brain.

Note that her experimental science, according to Harris, can in fact not answer the hard problem at all. This makes one wonder why this section exists.

All in all, Lights On contains some fantastic interviews with fascinating points. I especially liked the interviews with Anil Seth, David Eagleman, Lee Smolin, Carlo Rovelli and Sara Walker. However, Harris’ lack of focused argument, both throughout the documentary and in the individual conversations, makes this audio documentary less like a book, and more like a podcast series (or like a somewhat poor book, for that matter).

[Charles Reed · Rating 4 out of 5]

76 percent lights on. This is really a book about Pan's psychism, and I don't know what this girl does. She said she's a scientist. I'm, like, okay, you're a scientist, But she really doesn't give a fundamental foundation Of why she believes these things. I mean, aside from people's natural Inclination towards continuation, It's like, Well, the universe had to come from something and had to have a beginning in an end, like a line like Or segment. I mean to say, but It doesn't. Actually, It's because you're always used to something being having a beginning in an Doesn't mean that it has to. So, that breaks a lot of people's idea. It's the same idea as like having something come from nothing. I mean, We've seen things just pop into existence in vacuum states, and It really gives way to the idea that nothing is really, Not nothing, even. It was really funny to me because she yells, I believe that electrons have Consciousness and like, why, why did you yell? That Is a confession. It's like, oh, God, While it's really she doesn't bring anything to the table as an argument scientifically is to why?

Feels that way. Emotions. Okay, I mean, For there's some kind of sense here. You need, let's say, let's find this fundamentally right now. Consciousness. Let's say something needs memory, and it needs to have some way of acting on these memories Like recursiveness.

Now, that gives a lot of things. Some base level of Consciousness animals plants Some AI. It's not hard. Now that we've got that definition, Why is it that Consuming an electron Or other thing does not naturally impart its experiences? Then, I mean, it just does. It's not intelligent. There's no argument for it, And there's Discussion of what happens to it. Doesn't, re, are you saying that it maintains Individual Consciousness From within? What do you expressing?

I was saying cells parasites. All of these things have their individual Consciousness. I just. There's really not a foundation that she's making here, and that's where it gets Thought provoking to actually point out the. Idiosyncrasies Between what she's actually saying.

I mean, if we're going to talk about Consciousness, Being Apart from space and time, that's not. That doesn't work. It has to be a part of space. Everything's in space right now. Now, if you're going to say that it's wave, that's different that we can explore that Consciousness is a wave. Sure, it gets displaced or bounced around Or scattered if it's consumed. But like, there's so many different angles That we can approach this from this scientifically To expand the pants psychism argument, but we don't do that.

It's a great thought piece. It's Really Foundationally Intellectually weak. Also, I thought I was really funny that She did this, like podcast style, Like I, I am almost entirely certain of. This girl has a podcast And just decided to run the audiobook that way.

[Justin Nipko · Rating 4 out of 5]

The documentary was very well done, but I have conflicting feelings about the content.

First, what I liked. Annaka Harris gives us a fascinating front row seat to the messy process of scientific discovery as theorized in Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Essentially, Harris advocates for a somewhat heretical paradigm shift, and we get to see pushback and skepticism from the scientific community. I felt it myself (more on that in a minute). I appreciate the insight into this process.

I also really enjoyed the physics recap. Harris’s journey takes her through some of the most fascinating aspects of what we know and what we don’t know about the universe. Many of these discussions were enjoyably mind-bending reminders of just how much we are yet to learn about the nature of reality. Fun stuff.

Now, my criticisms. After eleven hours, I’m still not sure why Harris believes consciousness is likely fundamental. Nearly every time she explained her reasoning to the physicists she interviewed, they pointed out the glaring weaknesses and she just…ignored them? I don’t understand why she continued to advocate for panpsychism and even sided with it in the end. Maybe I’m just way too aligned with the current prevailing paradigm and can’t wrap my mind around new ideas, but I just didn’t find her arguments convincing beyond their potential for changing the way we think about a couple of sticky quantum problems.

At times, Harris’s position even felt disconcertingly similar to a god of the gaps argument. Because we can’t answer so many questions about the universe, her answer was to insert “consciousness is fundamental” into the gap because she’d had personal affirming experiences during meditation. And, similar to theism, the evidence for this theory just isn’t that strong. Could it prove to be true? Sure. But do we much have reason to think that consciousness is fundamental rather than emergent? Not really. She’s essentially plugging up the holes in our current understanding with a single, ill-defined idea that everything is conscious. It’s an argument from ignorance more than anything.

Again, I believe heretical thinking is necessary to drive science forward, but I’m still very unconvinced by her thesis even after Harris’s eleven hour documentary. Overall, a fun ride that I recommend. She just failed to convince in the end.

[J Kromrie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thanks to the publisher and Netgalley for this eARC in audiobook format.

Annaka Harris’s Lights On: How Understanding Consciousness Helps Us Understand the Universe is a thought-provoking exploration of one of the most profound mysteries of existence. Narrated by Harris herself, this audiobook offers a deeply engaging and accessible journey into the nature of consciousness and its implications for our understanding of the universe.

In Lights On, Harris delves into the enigmatic world of consciousness, posing questions that challenge our conventional understanding of reality. She explores whether consciousness could be a fundamental aspect of the universe, akin to gravity or electromagnetism. Through interviews with leading scientists and philosophers, including Brian Greene, David Eagleman, and Carlo Rovelli, Harris presents diverse perspectives on the nature of consciousness and its potential role in the cosmos.

Annaka Harris’s narration is a highlight of this audiobook. Her clear and articulate delivery makes complex concepts accessible to a broad audience. Harris’s passion for the subject matter shines through, adding an extra layer of authenticity and engagement to the listening experience.

Harris’s writing is eloquent and approachable, striking a balance between scientific rigor and philosophical inquiry. She skillfully weaves together scientific theories, personal anecdotes, and philosophical musings, creating a narrative that is as enlightening as it is thought-provoking.

Lights On explores themes of consciousness, reality, and the nature of existence. It challenges listeners to reconsider their assumptions about the mind and the universe, offering new perspectives on age-old questions.

Lights On: How Understanding Consciousness Helps Us Understand the Universe is a fascinating and enlightening audiobook that will appeal to anyone interested in the mysteries of the mind and the cosmos. Annaka Harris’s insightful exploration of consciousness, combined with her engaging narration, makes this a must-listen for both novices and experts in the field. The audiobook’s blend of scientific inquiry and philosophical reflection ensures it will leave a lasting impression on its listeners.