วีดีโอ

good video :o

Math can not measure or provide the logical blueprint for consciousness because consciousness is infinite. Taking a measurement is the same as framing something with limits and boundaries hence, infinity has no boundaries and can not be framed, measured or assigned boundaries. It's the same with spacetime measurements. These measurements offer a framed glimpse at spacetime however, there are hidden variables that prevent a complete measurement from being represented or observed. This means that spacetime itself is infinite making the measurement that was taken a framing of the infinite and not at all a complete measurement of the all.

Consciousness requires "free-choice will" meaning freedom to initiate and choose impulsively while showing a desire to complete an inner will or agenda that fulfils and satisfies something that possesses personal meaning to the chooser. Therefore, AI is not conscious in the same way that we are and will likely never be in our lifetimes because computer programs are not people. I know, it sounds overly simplistic and silly but it needs to be stated.

Brilliant!

Very well explained! Thank you for sharing.

If you know that the consumer of information is driven by the categorical imperative, then, given that the information must be acceptable to all mankind, it follows that the data that's needed is reduced to only the data that would be sufficient to provide information that's acceptable to all mankind. Here's what the above paragraph means: If you're an artificial consciousness and you know the general path to the discovery, then you don't have to traverse all other trillions of paths and you can get to the discovery a lot sooner.

What does the asymptote on the right side represent? What do you think? x-axis = (Moral Egoism, 0) union [0, Moral Perfection) y-axis = (Hell, 0) union [0, Heaven) 0 = the Indifference point x is the independent variable, while y is the dependent variable x takes one parameter at a time from three possible: E, 0, P x's parameters are functions (Hell, 0) is the Injustice interval I [0, Heaven) is the Justice interval J f(E) = Moral Egoism = "Do that, which you want and can do." f(P) = Moral Perfection = "Do only that, which would be acceptable to all (mankind)." The Indifference point, 0, can also be expressed as, f(0) = "Do only that, for which all (mankind) would not want to punish you." It's also the threshold where morality has no net impact on circumstances. Thus, the Justice interval can also be expressed as, J = [f(0), f(P)) = ["Do only that, for which all (mankind) would not want to punish you," "Do only that, which would be acceptable to all (mankind).") Assuming justice is acceptable, while injustice is unacceptable because every reasonable human desires to continuously experience minimum injustice and maximum justice with respect to everything. We can plot this model too: arctanh(x) = ln[(1 + x)/(1 - x)]/2, |x| < 1 Above, I've presented the abstract functions for Moral Egoism and Moral Perfection. But here are general descriptions of these concepts: - Moral egoism is the normative position that moral agents ought to act in their own self-interest. It means that what is best for the individual is the highest morality. - Moral perfectionism is the conviction that human beings have a duty to aspire to moral perfection. It posits the pursuit of moral excellence as the ultimate goal of human life, as the path to physical perfection lies exclusively through moral perfection.

T

I love this video and talk! The only nitpick I have is about the thought experiment with color qualia. The sets of relationships that define human color vision are part of a qualitative process- meaning, much like you explained in your video, consists of a set of qualitative relationships between each point in color space, which per the Yoneda Lemma, this means that each color is defined by its relation to other colors, thus meaning that no color could possibly be different than what it is, because it is defined by its relationship to other colors in color space. The thing about qualia is that it does not only involve qualitative processes- it involves the construction of qualitative processes, subjective processes, and distinction processes as well. I like to use the Duck-Rabbit illusion as an example of this. This is an example where a qualitative process (the empirical qualities of that image and how that pertains to how the photons enter the eye, optic nerve, etc.) takes on a new set of relationships because the subjective process (perception of the image) can impart distinction processes which create new sets of relationships where the subjective process and distinction process adds new sets of relationships to the diagram that involve the perception of the image one way or another from a subject. Since objects are defined by their relations, as per the Yoneda Lemma, this means that the changes between the relations between objects that can occur due to the perception of an image (not just seeing it) actually do change how that object (color) can be defined. Likewise, with color, things like different languages having different words for colors, or perceptual differences like synaesthesia, etc. may also contribute to additional subjective and distinction processes that can augment the sets of relationships between the qualitative process of the color space itself vs. any distinction processes resulting from its subjective perception. It's not to say that your statements about the rigorousness of the external qualitive process of human color space is incorrect- I 100% agree with you there. It's more so that I believe that these psychometrics can be augmented by other types of processes and relations besides just the qualitative ones, at least when it comes to qualia. I derive my reasoning from the compositional mathematics for subjective experience described in this paper. Most notably, the mathematical model proposed here contains a proof regarding the readability of the qualitative processes of others' experience, but the unreadability of others' subjective processes of experience- meaning that the inverse spectrum problem will never truly be answered, as per this mathematical model's postulates, at least. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810021000945#b0010

I don't get it. Why is the teacher not even credited? Unless he is the owner of this channel? It would be nice to at least know his name and affiliation, if only for a critical appreciation of the lecture.

Sir do you even know what the word “ Consciousness “ means . Your definition is a language issue. Optimistic all sentient beings with a huge brain with 5 senses , ability to communicate will have some sort of understanding what consciousness means . There is no such thing as “non consciousness “to a sentient being .

*ahem for those from outer-space or cyber-space @ 16:57 he meant "functional"

Lsd breaks axiom #5. There is no boundary to consciousness

Intelligence doesn't imply consciousness. Ego doesn't imply consciousness.

28:29 something about complex numbers in quantum mechanics

23:50 💀💀💀💀

Thank you so much for sharing!

Money. Death of intellectual integrity. Nihilistic decadence. Read Nietzsche

beautiful presentation!

Wow. This really motivates me to understand CT further.

This is pivotal

congrats on the presentation and work! very exciting stuff

thats such a facinating approach, ty for explaining it in such an understandable way :D

Ternary networks, or “3-way interactions which cannot be reduced to pairwise sub-interactions”, are self-dual 😌💭 Excellent work, Carlos!

After 100 years it really seems like the only REAL advancement in our understanding of the human brain is that we can say "we have no idea how the human brain works" in ever more complicated ways.

Great lecture.

You know that if some quantity grows "fast" it doesn't mean that it grows exponentially? There is an actual mathematical meaning to this term. These graphs look more linear or at most quadratic. This is only two minutes in, which is quite disappointing for a talk about "Category Theory for Neuroscience". I will give it a couple more minutes hoping that it improves.

This distorted sphere, does this come from measured data? Is that distorted sphere similar for all brains? Is there a noticeable uncertainty? Is it proven, that there is no way for this mathematically vaguely defined distorted sphere to be isomorphic to a flipped version of itself? It's not the same. It's isomorphic. And this color space maybe can be isomorphic to another ordering of the color spectrum.

Isn't being isomorphic the same as being the same up to names. That means, things have the same structure. But then in the "practical example" the same is the same you? I don't really like this isomorphic =: same abstraction. Because it's not about equality.

Cause (thesis) is dual to effect (anti-thesis) -- Hegel. Integrating information is a syntropic process -- teleological. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

Yeah nah, this mathematical theory is missing something imo. Can't put my finger on it, tho. Maybe it has something to do with the axioms. Idk. Very interesting tho.

I am not convinced. Really shallow theory...

Also, it's very out there but what if consciousness is inevitably existence experience itself resulting in all conscious experiences being that of existence itself and then existence breaks this up into a linear subjective timeline (i.e. 'we', 'us', existence itself experiences itself and goes through various lives).

Sometimes I wonder if what really exists is conscious experience in its own right and as discussed in this video, these conscious experiences are integrated creating the illusion of the self. Note, not an illusion of consciousness but conscious experiences exist and they create the self, with that being the illusion.

Consciousness is an incredible thing. One thing that's so mysterious is that it does not appear to be a part of objective reality and yet our own experience of it proves that it exists. If you say that your consciousness does not exist then you are not experiencing yourself reading this right now - disagreeing with that statement requires consciousness (and we get back to 'I think therefore I am'). I suppose either this is part of objective reality (our conscious experience) but in a way that we do not understand or we need to expand linguistics and concepts of 'existence'.

good grief. If you are really saying ,switching on things in a certain way ,gives you the colour red ? Well lets switch on a similar set of switches in a computer and let it experience the colour red. Better still , lets print out the code , the moment the computer experiences red, so we can claim the code on the paper is experiencing red.

This technocratic approach tells us exactly nothing about consciousness. Consciousness is an emergent property of every autopoietic (i.e. self-sustaining/self-recreating = living) system and precisely emerges from the reduction of complexity (i.e., perception, representation) between the infinitely complex environment to the relatively few perceptions, i.e. to the model-building, that is necessary for autopoietic self-preservation and survival. These perceptions or models also include system-internal (i.e., within-the-body) processes, thus forming a self-representation contained in the representation of the environment. This is the definition of consciousness. One of the simplest organisms that has consciousness (i.e. a model of itself inside a model of its environment, thus a perception of itself) is a single living cell.

That's not how neuron work, and you can't us "logic" to combine information that's analog in essence, you are so confuse about the brain ! This is just a curious tentative projection of digital computing onto a neural network, you can't go backward like that with analog information. Look for Hebb rule if you want to understand neurons ! Not reducible to what you present. Essentially, one thing that is not reproduced in your model, beside not being analog, is “any two cells or systems of cells that are repeatedly active at the same time will tend to become 'associated,' so that activity in one facilitates activity in the other”. Real neurons have a potential excitation (sensitivity) different for each incoming dendrites and this potential is modified following Hebb's rule ! If an input dendrite is active when an output is generated, the dendrite sensitivity is increased, and conversely decreased when they are not active at the same time. Your model does not represent learning, just a finished unchanging network. Sadly unproductive mathematically because the 'objects' are not represented correctly, sorry. Moreover, you have not demonstrated how you use it to get any results.

Somebody intent at DEFINING consciousness for a start ????? I have not seen ONE definition that makes sense yet ? You don't have a "solid starting point" as you say, if you don't give a comprehensive definition, as is done in mathematics ! Start over ! It doesn't make any sense like this ! BTW, it seems to me that IIT just another (fancy) name for cognition !

A descripton of X can never be X ... IIT is useless

This guy talks so fast I thought my video was at 1.5x speed

Zero interest. Come back when you can actually make a prediction that can be tested.

Interesting presentation, but actually yonedas lemmas still doesn't solve the problem with qualia

Information should not be use as axiom. There is definition of informatrion from prof. Marian Mazur and this definition is generalized by phd Jozef Kossecki in general quality theory of information. All of them is described in math properly.

But what's it gonna cost me?

Are you familiar with the philosophies of Martin Heidegger and Ludwig Wittgenstein? Heidegger was interested in the meaning of being and Wittgenstein was interested in the philosophy of language. They operated very independently of one another but interestingly converged on ideas very similar to what you mentioned here with the Yoneda Lemma. Wittgenstein argued that a private language would be impossible to learn. And your argument on color perception is a more precisely stated version Wittgenstein's private language argument. I want to go even further than you here. The universe is inherently meaningful because of its networked nature. Meaning is the relationship between a node and the network it is embedded in. And this holds true for all levels of nature. Being is the internal structure of a node (its existence) plus the relationship it has with the network it's embedded in. For this reason, meaning and being are intertwined with one another. I refer to this geometry as 'Situatedness.' Information is the signaling of Situatedness. Learning and knowledge are the storage and remembering of Situatedness. Meaning makes information possible, which in turn makes life possible, which in turn makes intelligence possible, which in turn makes consciousness possible. In other words, meaning makes information possible, not the other way around.

I love this. Had never heard of this test.

I believe we do know that some animals are aware of Self, and self-awareness is a trait that is attributed to consciousness. The way we determine is to take chalk and put a mark on the animals head or elsewhere on their body, then show them a mirror and if they reach for the chalk mark on their own body, then we know that they are self-aware. Elephants, monkeys, and many other animals have passed this test, but not all and not most; however, this is buy one method and other methods might reveal more accurate results. For instance, this test cant work for fish, as chalk would wash off. Also, this test could be passed by repetition and a learned pattern recognition rather than self-awareness. However, elephants for one pass this test the first time, before any pattern knowledge is instilled in them.

If the colour absorption spectrum was symmetrical the result would be the opposite. I do not see how one would need category theory to come to this conclusion and would be very happy if someone could shed some light on this. it is quite obvious even with simple logic following. Going further with asymmetrical colour absorption spectrum, the result still would be different if we do not "assume" individuals who might have inverted spectrum still have the same colour absorption/perception with the ones who do not have inverted. If inverted spectrum people also have different absorption, we still can not differentiate them. Another note is that this makes it possible for everyone to have different vision since we might have continuously different colour spaces with a corresponding absorption spectrum such that the distances between the colours are always the same for everyone.

What's stopping someone from creating some strange meaningless dynamical system with a huge number of interacting nodes, that has a large phi, but is not representing anything about the world or interacting with any external stimuli?