Michael Shermer is an excellent interviewer. He is able to engage with the guest without too many interruptions and extract a lot of insights on a variety of issues. His voice is Very calm and soothing - before you know it almost 2 hours have passed.
I discovered David Chalmers over 5 years ago and immediately was hooked. His brain is my jam lol, and as soon as his new book came out, I purchased the audible! It’s wonderful just like him, thank you for interviewing him!
In 1971 when I was a neurochemist I rejected the ide that consciousness was an emergent property and based on my interpretation of quantum mechanics and my experiences with psychedelics became a radical monist. In 1981 when I was a video game programmer I first came up with a simulation hypothesis more as a joke than anything else. In the last few years when I was using AI in an embedded system I thought the only question left for me is, "Am I a player character or an NPC?" Recently being semi-retired and having more free time to think and philosophize I joined the 12 percent of philosophers who believe there is no free will I know I'm a Non-player character within a simulation. The only Ultimate Reality is consciousness a la Advaita. Tat Tuam Asi.
Free Will is choosing to put forth "more free time to think and philosophize". Therefore, you have free will and selected what to do with your free time.
Dr. Shermer, my philosophy professor at Cornell explained to the class exactly why it’s impossible for us to simulate the ‘actual’ universe: The very simulation would have us simulating a universe. Then in that one another. This would result in an infinite amount of downward simulations requiring infinite memory.
Isn't that really easy to address by just putting some sort of a memory limit? Like reset the base universe when the number of child universes becomes too large for the memory to handle. The simulated universe doesn't have to exist continuously. It could be switched on and off and run in different states. The inhabitants would not observe this and would have an illusion of continuity.
@@TheHermit91 In a Harvard philosophy course the professor, Michael Sandel, presented a thought experiment and, then, asked for opinions. One student, and there is often one in every crowd, said, “Well, what about this instead…?” at which point the professor said, “Interesting, but thanks for changing the thought experiment!” Hermit, if you wish to simulate our universe but then change it, you haven’t actually simulated our universe, have you? So in the case of simulating our actual universe (what we assume to be real), this would include simulating someone simulating the universe, right? From this we see it’s impossible… as this now requires simulations down forever and an infinite amount of memory. Note: Dr. Chalmers speaks to this unsolved dilemma issue in his book. Ref. The Thirteenth Floor vs. the MATRIX
@@yinYangMountain No, I haven't changed the thought experiment. What I described is consistent with the simulation of our actual universe. I'm not sure where you're confused.
@@TheHermit91 You, in fact, are… via classic rhetorical equivocation-full stop (What do you mean by ‘Universe?’). What’s impossible: 1) Simulating a universe that’s infinite. [Press ‘run’ and you’ll get the same error message as when calculating pi.] 2) Simulating a city with sentient cyber-beings with our technology / computers. This results in infinite downward levels. Ref: The Thirteenth Floor - Memory is not the ‘issue,’ a specific hypothetical reality is. To simulate a ‘real’ universe requires simulating ‘reality.’ You cannot simulate reality while simultaneously changing it-period. - Could we simulate a ‘world,’ such as 1920s Los Angeles? Sure. Why? ‘Cause it’s limited to 1920s Los Angeles. Ref: The Thirteenth Floor
If David is open to us being able to create simulations in which there will be conscious entities, I expect that thinks the Hard problem of consciousness is not that hard, because the consciousness we talk about has the advantage of being already present without doing expensive simulation. The "correlation vs causation" dichotomy is trotted out to refute all the progress made by neuroscience and anesthesiology. Do people think the effect of applying the anesthesia that results in loss of consciousness is due to "correlation" or "causation"? It may be - that dichotomy does not even apply to the brain/consciousness relationship and is a red herring. What do anesthesiologists think about this? Do they think that I will make these changes in brain chemistry so that the patient will be rendered unconscious in correlation to what I do, or I cause the patient to go unconscious.
@@schmetterling4477 if it only keeps saying that and does nothing else at all, most people will not classify it as a conscious entity. Consciousness is not a thing. It is a collection of a class of phenomena we conventionally call conscious.
You're on the right track. If you're interested in further scientific study and understanding of consciousness check out Michael Graziano, Anil Seth, Jeff Hawkins and Antonio Damasio. Shermer actually interviewed Damasio so check out that video.
@@Zayden. Thanks. Yes, I follow them closely. I feel like people who put forward idealism (Bernardo Kastrup), dualism, and panpsychism (Philip Goff) are (intentionally?) ignoring a lot of headway/progress made by modern neuroscience wrt understanding of aspects of conscious phenomena. I think there is some apples and oranges stuff going on between "correlation vs causation" juxtapositions. I think correlation is a statistical concept. The political leaning of a person in the US is correlated with the state (blue or red) of the USA they live in. But a specific individual may be conservative or liberal in any state. Along the same lines, the effect of anesthesia on a particular person's brain is not because of correlation. Instead, it is due to causation IMHO.
Just went on a 5 hour Shermer marathon.... Annnnnnnnd.... I'm back here again to this podcast.... #2 Because I cannot absolutely believe Shermer brought up Orchestrated Objective Reduction to Chalmers. And I wanted to make sure I wasn't hallucinating
If we were in a simulation, we should be able to identify, Turing's Halting Problem; problems that are described in his computability theory. In fact, there would be no escape from these issues for a supposed "Universe Simulation."
The challenge on simulation and an intelligent species (or objects) being simulated, if the simulation was good enough, those existing in the simulation would never know. As for Shermer wondering about computer power necessary to compute the universe, he comes at that mostly from a human perspective. We really have no idea that our existing computer design and methods are the ultimate computer.
Regarding consciousness, it is my humble opinion that we are over thinking this. My assessment of consciousness is that it is simply a scale of awareness based on the capacity to perceive information. An insects level of consciousness is very limited, essentially just responding to internal and external stimuli enough to function. A rabbit has a higher level, it has the capacity to experience emotions such as fear but not enough information and processing power to experience a sense of self. Even humans, when they are very young lack the information and processing power to have a sense of self. Regarding super general AI, it would eventually have sufficient information and processing power to have a sense of self but would lack emotions unless we somehow programed them. Even then, the emotions would be artificial. How do you program discomfort or pleasure on which emotions are based? I don't think that you can, so programed emotions would be artificial responses, not true emotion.
There is no explanation whatsoever as to how „more“ processing power or complexity would lead to what we call consciousness or sense of self. I‘m afraid it is indeed more complicated than you think. More awareness is simply more awareness. Where and how would an „observer“ originate like we have?
You're on the right track. If you're interested in further scientific study and understanding of consciousness check out Michael Graziano, Anil Seth, Jeff Hawkins and Antonio Damasio. Shermer actually interviewed Damasio so check out that video.
A higher scale of awareness is being aware of creator of the universe. The How life was introduced into lifeless molecules, and the Why. Materialists know When life appeared on earth 🌎🌍 but Not How or Why.
Rheinogold (2009) claimed that 'online' we seem to be in control, with an intimate connection, with something or someone in a world both internal and external, simultaneously. The challenge, Rheingold suggests, is to keep it human-centered given the rise and rise of corporations who sell identity for profit to anyone who wants it.
The first time I’ve read about AI reaching consciousness was in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein, where the big computer running everything in the colony on the Moon becomes so big that it becomes sentient. I was 13 years old and it gave me the absolute certainty that sooner or after it will become reality. I guess you should pay attention on what you read as a kid :) but Data is definitely one of my favourites , together with R. Daneel Olivaw of course. And then all those questions, are we robot ourselves?
The term hard problem of consciousness is vacuous and we are still talking about something that means so many things and is almost illusory. The only scientist that addressed consciousness correctly is Marvin Minsky.
Chalmers invokes Descartes's evil demon thought experiment a lot in his book, but the historical Descartes was not a self-absorbed nerd. In his day job he was a gentleman soldier in service to a Dutch nobleman. And in his private life he had a steady girlfriend, only in his time those women were called "mistresses." She bore him a natural daughter, who unfortunately died young. Also Descartes stated explicitly that he wanted his philosophical project to ground man's knowledge on a better foundation so that men could improve the practice of medicine, among other things, to enable people to live longer and healthier. In other words, Descartes lived as a regular guy, and he was oriented towards improving man's life *_in this world,_* instead of obsessing over whether we are living in illusory worlds imposed on our minds by supernatural beings.
I always wondered how one can say "....but at some point the machines become self aware." Algorithms are deterministic and don't become self aware. I am fascinated by such casual statements with no real insights into consciousness. It's not even a hypothesis to say such things.
Usually when people say "at some point the machines become self-aware" they suppose that technology will continue developing both higher power and greater nuance. It is after all a guess. We haven't done it yet, but people assume it's possible. I'm not arguing either way about it.
Im a poetic naturalist, Physic tell us a different story about reality and human bein so I dont think that conciousness is fundamental and its emergence. But still all respect to Mr David
Seems to me that we cannot perform an experiment to see if consciousness emerges from matter or that matter emerges from consciousness. I weigh the scales towards the latter bc of human experience which science obviously does not use
there is no way of knowing if the computers felt what it was like to be themselves. assuming one way or another is belief based. my belief leans towards complete consciousness of Everything. how that feeling is, is up to the being inhabiting those timespaceconsciousness points/monads/coordinates.
The slow replacement solution does not work: This philosophical dilemma is explored in the classic thought experiment, The Ship of Theseus. E.g., if every neurological brain part from you was somehow kept and then later resembled inside another cloned body’s skull, now which one is you? This is the classic continuity issue.
If every "neurological brain part" are placed in a survival environment but are Not conscious, then Consciousness is not the brain. Mind is conscious and uses the brain to activate the human mortal body.
Before you can talk scientifically about it, you will have to be able to detect and measure it. Until that happens, it's all just personal WAGs, or hypotheses.
As far as quantum and simulation theories goes, its pretty simple in theistic viewpoint. God is by observation simulating reality and we are playing parts there.
I’m working on an idea, it’s not fully formed but I’d like to share. I believe we are two minds in one. One is awake but not really in control, one is not awake but has control. Think to people with Tourette’s, their twitches by their own admission have an intelligence behind them. Split brain subjects show two distinct motives in the single human. I think we are two entities in the one body. One mind that experiences, but follows the carrot. The other is not in our spot light of consciousness, but has authority that we do not possess.
Why categorically stop at "Two Minds" in one body? Once we start ascribing multiple minds to a single brain then I see no objective reason to stop at two. One could categorically think of there brain as many distinct Departments or "Minds" (Sex Drive Mind, Creative Mind, Visual Mind, Forward Thinking Mind, Past Thinking Mind, Goal Seeking Mind etc.).
Here's my soft solution to David Chalmers conundrum "the hard problem of consciousness" and Thomas Nagels' 1974 "what is it like to be a bat". Both are charming & fanciful memes but do little to explain what consciousness really is. Consciousness IS. All else is a distillation of thought and perceived in consciousness. Anyway, addressing Thomas' "what is it like to be a bat".. that's a bit of difficult question realy . 🤔 I don't even know what it's like to be anyone in my immediate family, how can I possibly know what it's like to be a bat or any other animal for that matter. All l know is what it's like to be me and that I AM conscious. I suspect that other human beings share this common experience of Selhood and consciousness. However, there is the 5000 year old Indic philosophical tradition of Advaita Vedanta or non dualism that has systematically n i believe adequately addressed this question of consciousness with startling clarity. The current master and internet guru of this Vedic system of understanding consciousness is none other than the sensesational swami Sarvapriyananda, spiritual head of the Vedanta Society NY. Spoiler alert ⚠️ this system posits the primacy of consciousness.
The hard problem for me is how Chalmers and Chopra have careers. Clearly people enjoy an excuse to hang on to “mystical” questions & many of us enjoy Dennett and Harris publicly flogging them. Seriously subjectivity is what it feels like for neurons to fire, end of debate. See not so hard. Literally subjectivity doesn’t exist, hence the illusion of the self.
You're on the right track. If you're interested in further scientific study and understanding of consciousness check out Michael Graziano, Anil Seth, Jeff Hawkins and Antonio Damasio. Shermer actually interviewed Damasio so check out that video.
@@anteodedi8937 there’s plenty of philosophers pursuing other ideas. I don’t fault him for looking into it, but he’s made a career of promoting Idealism (through his books, debates, and lectures). I’m less surprised he’s pursued it than the number of people taking him seriously.
The mystery of consciousness only exists if you are trying to shoe horn it into a reductionist materialist framework..your simplistic view of reality is the problem not consciousness.
Oh, come on! Vulcans practice suppressing their emotions because their entire planet was constantly consumed in war! Next you are going to tell me that stoicism means no emotions.
I love you guys, I really do. But when you say things like, "we'll need to regulate the creation of deepfakes" as though that is a genuine solution, you might as well be saying, "we should regulate the creation of street drugs." Ivory tower thinking
Also, what's the point of a simulation other than the programmers entertainment. Simulated people, eating simulated food, having simulated children and having simulated deaths. What 's the point? All inventions, creations, ideas all made up. No point.
Michael Shermer is an excellent interviewer.
He is able to engage with the guest without too many interruptions and extract a lot of insights on a variety of issues.
His voice is Very calm and soothing - before you know it almost 2 hours have passed.
"Paranormal like ESP is just a placeholder for stuff we have not figured out yet" nicely put
I discovered David Chalmers over 5 years ago and immediately was hooked. His brain is my jam lol, and as soon as his new book came out, I purchased the audible! It’s wonderful just like him, thank you for interviewing him!
He's fantastic. I use his videos in my philosophy courses.
In 1971 when I was a neurochemist I rejected the ide that consciousness was an emergent property and based on my interpretation of quantum mechanics and my experiences with psychedelics became a radical monist.
In 1981 when I was a video game programmer I first came up with a simulation hypothesis more as a joke than anything else.
In the last few years when I was using AI in an embedded system I thought the only question left for me is, "Am I a player character or an NPC?"
Recently being semi-retired and having more free time to think and philosophize I joined the 12 percent of philosophers who believe there is no free will I know I'm a Non-player character within a simulation.
The only Ultimate Reality is consciousness a la Advaita.
Tat Tuam Asi.
And when were you Napoleon? :-)
Free Will is choosing to put forth "more free time to think and philosophize". Therefore, you have free will and selected what to do with your free time.
🤦♂️😂
GREAT GUEST. AMAZING.
Dr. Shermer, my philosophy professor at Cornell explained to the class exactly why it’s impossible for us to simulate the ‘actual’ universe: The very simulation would have us simulating a universe. Then in that one another. This would result in an infinite amount of downward simulations requiring infinite memory.
and also applying occam razor that would be no use if all that simulation can be done by single observer
Isn't that really easy to address by just putting some sort of a memory limit? Like reset the base universe when the number of child universes becomes too large for the memory to handle. The simulated universe doesn't have to exist continuously. It could be switched on and off and run in different states. The inhabitants would not observe this and would have an illusion of continuity.
@@TheHermit91 In a Harvard philosophy course the professor, Michael Sandel, presented a thought experiment and, then, asked for opinions. One student, and there is often one in every crowd, said, “Well, what about this instead…?” at which point the professor said, “Interesting, but thanks for changing the thought experiment!”
Hermit, if you wish to simulate our universe but then change it, you haven’t actually simulated our universe, have you? So in the case of simulating our actual universe (what we assume to be real), this would include simulating someone simulating the universe, right? From this we see it’s impossible… as this now requires simulations down forever and an infinite amount of memory. Note: Dr. Chalmers speaks to this unsolved dilemma issue in his book.
Ref. The Thirteenth Floor vs. the MATRIX
@@yinYangMountain No, I haven't changed the thought experiment. What I described is consistent with the simulation of our actual universe. I'm not sure where you're confused.
@@TheHermit91 You, in fact, are… via classic rhetorical equivocation-full stop (What do you mean by ‘Universe?’). What’s impossible:
1) Simulating a universe that’s infinite. [Press ‘run’ and you’ll get the same error message as when calculating pi.]
2) Simulating a city with sentient cyber-beings with our technology / computers. This results in infinite downward levels. Ref: The Thirteenth Floor
- Memory is not the ‘issue,’ a specific hypothetical reality is. To simulate a ‘real’ universe requires simulating ‘reality.’ You cannot simulate reality while simultaneously changing it-period.
- Could we simulate a ‘world,’ such as 1920s Los Angeles? Sure. Why? ‘Cause it’s limited to 1920s Los Angeles. Ref: The Thirteenth Floor
I wish i had all these handbooks and companions on the background)) great and fruitful conversation, thank you both
If David is open to us being able to create simulations in which there will be conscious entities, I expect that thinks the Hard problem of consciousness is not that hard, because the consciousness we talk about has the advantage of being already present without doing expensive simulation.
The "correlation vs causation" dichotomy is trotted out to refute all the progress made by neuroscience and anesthesiology. Do people think the effect of applying the anesthesia that results in loss of consciousness is due to "correlation" or "causation"? It may be - that dichotomy does not even apply to the brain/consciousness relationship and is a red herring. What do anesthesiologists think about this? Do they think that I will make these changes in brain chemistry so that the patient will be rendered unconscious in correlation to what I do, or I cause the patient to go unconscious.
I can create a simple program that keeps repeating "I think, therefor I am!". How are you going to prove that it is not conscious? :-)
@@schmetterling4477 if it only keeps saying that and does nothing else at all, most people will not classify it as a conscious entity. Consciousness is not a thing. It is a collection of a class of phenomena we conventionally call conscious.
@@SandipChitale What most people will classify as something is not a valid criteria for anything in life. It usually just ends up being bullshit. :-)
You're on the right track. If you're interested in further scientific study and understanding of consciousness check out Michael Graziano, Anil Seth, Jeff Hawkins and Antonio Damasio. Shermer actually interviewed Damasio so check out that video.
@@Zayden. Thanks. Yes, I follow them closely. I feel like people who put forward idealism (Bernardo Kastrup), dualism, and panpsychism (Philip Goff) are (intentionally?) ignoring a lot of headway/progress made by modern neuroscience wrt understanding of aspects of conscious phenomena. I think there is some apples and oranges stuff going on between "correlation vs causation" juxtapositions. I think correlation is a statistical concept. The political leaning of a person in the US is correlated with the state (blue or red) of the USA they live in. But a specific individual may be conservative or liberal in any state. Along the same lines, the effect of anesthesia on a particular person's brain is not because of correlation. Instead, it is due to causation IMHO.
Just went on a 5 hour Shermer marathon.... Annnnnnnnd.... I'm back here again to this podcast.... #2 Because I cannot absolutely believe Shermer brought up Orchestrated Objective Reduction to Chalmers. And I wanted to make sure I wasn't hallucinating
Two great minds.
If we were in a simulation, we should be able to identify, Turing's Halting Problem; problems that are described in his computability theory. In fact, there would be no escape from these issues for a supposed "Universe Simulation."
The challenge on simulation and an intelligent species (or objects) being simulated, if the simulation was good enough, those existing in the simulation would never know. As for Shermer wondering about computer power necessary to compute the universe, he comes at that mostly from a human perspective. We really have no idea that our existing computer design and methods are the ultimate computer.
Regarding consciousness, it is my humble opinion that we are over thinking this. My assessment of consciousness is that it is simply a scale of awareness based on the capacity to perceive information. An insects level of consciousness is very limited, essentially just responding to internal and external stimuli enough to function. A rabbit has a higher level, it has the capacity to experience emotions such as fear but not enough information and processing power to experience a sense of self. Even humans, when they are very young lack the information and processing power to have a sense of self.
Regarding super general AI, it would eventually have sufficient information and processing power to have a sense of self but would lack emotions unless we somehow programed them. Even then, the emotions would be artificial. How do you program discomfort or pleasure on which emotions are based? I don't think that you can, so programed emotions would be artificial responses, not true emotion.
There is no explanation whatsoever as to how „more“ processing power or complexity would lead to what we call consciousness or sense of self. I‘m afraid it is indeed more complicated than you think. More awareness is simply more awareness. Where and how would an „observer“ originate like we have?
You're on the right track. If you're interested in further scientific study and understanding of consciousness check out Michael Graziano, Anil Seth, Jeff Hawkins and Antonio Damasio. Shermer actually interviewed Damasio so check out that video.
A higher scale of awareness is being aware of creator of the universe. The How life was introduced into lifeless molecules, and the Why.
Materialists know When life appeared on earth 🌎🌍 but Not How or Why.
Rheinogold (2009) claimed that 'online' we seem to be in control, with an intimate connection, with something or someone in a world both internal and external, simultaneously. The challenge, Rheingold suggests, is to keep it human-centered given the rise and rise of corporations who sell identity for profit to anyone who wants it.
The first time I’ve read about AI reaching consciousness was in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein, where the big computer running everything in the colony on the Moon becomes so big that it becomes sentient. I was 13 years old and it gave me the absolute certainty that sooner or after it will become reality. I guess you should pay attention on what you read as a kid :) but Data is definitely one of my favourites , together with R. Daneel Olivaw of course. And then all those questions, are we robot ourselves?
Speaking of reality+, could it be that we live in a toal immersion metaverse?
The term hard problem of consciousness is vacuous and we are still talking about something that means so many things and is almost illusory. The only scientist that addressed consciousness correctly is Marvin Minsky.
Frank Tipler's omega point idea, did he steal that from Phillip Jose Farmer's Riverworld series?
Hash Tag Data is alive!
Great episode! As a Star Trek fan, I loved all the Trek talk!
Chalmers invokes Descartes's evil demon thought experiment a lot in his book, but the historical Descartes was not a self-absorbed nerd. In his day job he was a gentleman soldier in service to a Dutch nobleman. And in his private life he had a steady girlfriend, only in his time those women were called "mistresses." She bore him a natural daughter, who unfortunately died young. Also Descartes stated explicitly that he wanted his philosophical project to ground man's knowledge on a better foundation so that men could improve the practice of medicine, among other things, to enable people to live longer and healthier.
In other words, Descartes lived as a regular guy, and he was oriented towards improving man's life *_in this world,_* instead of obsessing over whether we are living in illusory worlds imposed on our minds by supernatural beings.
I always wondered how one can say "....but at some point the machines become self aware." Algorithms are deterministic and don't become self aware. I am fascinated by such casual statements with no real insights into consciousness. It's not even a hypothesis to say such things.
Usually when people say "at some point the machines become self-aware" they suppose that technology will continue developing both higher power and greater nuance. It is after all a guess. We haven't done it yet, but people assume it's possible. I'm not arguing either way about it.
Im a poetic naturalist, Physic tell us a different story about reality and human bein so I dont think that conciousness is fundamental and its emergence. But still all respect to Mr David
Seems to me that we cannot perform an experiment to see if consciousness emerges from matter or that matter emerges from consciousness. I weigh the scales towards the latter bc of human experience which science obviously does not use
Train my dog how to do photography! That sounds like the course for me.
Holy shit he did at 27 minutes. Unbelievable. You guys have any idea how fucking profound that is. Damn. That's wild.
I can't believe he brought up fucking Plato to Chalmers. ..... That's huge.
"I'd know if this wasn't real."
- every 8 bit game character ever
Finally. They bring up Plato at 1:10:00.
That took long enough. But inevitable nonetheless.
there is no way of knowing if the computers felt what it was like to be themselves. assuming one way or another is belief based. my belief leans towards complete consciousness of Everything. how that feeling is, is up to the being inhabiting those timespaceconsciousness points/monads/coordinates.
1:22 If you hold a hammer in your hand everything looks like a nail.
The slow replacement solution does not work: This philosophical dilemma is explored in the classic thought experiment, The Ship of Theseus. E.g., if every neurological brain part from you was somehow kept and then later resembled inside another cloned body’s skull, now which one is you? This is the classic continuity issue.
If every "neurological brain part" are placed in a survival environment but are Not conscious, then Consciousness is not the brain. Mind is conscious and uses the brain to activate the human mortal body.
Philosophy is a personal opinion and has no basis in reality, Just like its sibling religion.
I see what David did with that globe there.
Down under my arse 😅
Before you can talk scientifically about it, you will have to be able to detect and measure it. Until that happens, it's all just personal WAGs, or hypotheses.
I suggest the following test for consciousness: You keep asking silly questions and see if that pisses off the AI.
Why?
As far as quantum and simulation theories goes, its pretty simple in theistic viewpoint. God is by observation simulating reality and we are playing parts there.
The intro is so unnecessary! Just get on with the interview
Just fast forward if you don't like it
@@fullmatthew nahhh shermer can just trim that shit off
If you mean opening with sponsors, I agree with you. If you mean asking the guest about their background, I agree even more! Painful.
Philosophy is great on a full stomach. 🙃
I’m working on an idea, it’s not fully formed but I’d like to share. I believe we are two minds in one. One is awake but not really in control, one is not awake but has control. Think to people with Tourette’s, their twitches by their own admission have an intelligence behind them. Split brain subjects show two distinct motives in the single human. I think we are two entities in the one body. One mind that experiences, but follows the carrot. The other is not in our spot light of consciousness, but has authority that we do not possess.
Why categorically stop at "Two Minds" in one body? Once we start ascribing multiple minds to a single brain then I see no objective reason to stop at two. One could categorically think of there brain as many distinct Departments or "Minds" (Sex Drive Mind, Creative Mind, Visual Mind, Forward Thinking Mind, Past Thinking Mind, Goal Seeking Mind etc.).
Here's my soft solution to David Chalmers conundrum "the hard problem of consciousness" and Thomas Nagels' 1974 "what is it like to be a bat".
Both are charming & fanciful memes but do little to explain what consciousness really is.
Consciousness IS. All else is a distillation of thought and perceived in consciousness.
Anyway, addressing Thomas' "what is it like to be a bat".. that's a bit of difficult question realy . 🤔 I don't even know what it's like to be anyone in my immediate family, how can I possibly know what it's like to be a bat or any other animal for that matter.
All l know is what it's like to be me and that I AM conscious.
I suspect that other human beings share this common experience of Selhood and consciousness.
However, there is the 5000 year old Indic philosophical tradition of Advaita Vedanta or non dualism that has systematically n i believe adequately addressed this question of consciousness with startling clarity.
The current master and internet guru of this Vedic system of understanding consciousness is none other than the sensesational swami Sarvapriyananda, spiritual head of the Vedanta Society NY.
Spoiler alert ⚠️ this system posits the primacy of consciousness.
The hard problem for me is how Chalmers and Chopra have careers. Clearly people enjoy an excuse to hang on to “mystical” questions & many of us enjoy Dennett and Harris publicly flogging them. Seriously subjectivity is what it feels like for neurons to fire, end of debate. See not so hard. Literally subjectivity doesn’t exist, hence the illusion of the self.
You're on the right track. If you're interested in further scientific study and understanding of consciousness check out Michael Graziano, Anil Seth, Jeff Hawkins and Antonio Damasio. Shermer actually interviewed Damasio so check out that video.
Are you really puting Chalmers on the level of Chopra? Chalmers is a real philosopher while Chopra is a charlatan.
@@anteodedi8937 while I agree Chalmers is definitely more serious than Chopra, it’s incredible to me he’s stayed employed pursuing Idealism
@@chemquests Well, a honest philosopher must pursue all positions. After all he is not an idealist.
@@anteodedi8937 there’s plenty of philosophers pursuing other ideas. I don’t fault him for looking into it, but he’s made a career of promoting Idealism (through his books, debates, and lectures). I’m less surprised he’s pursued it than the number of people taking him seriously.
is he a mysterian or isn't he, by 14:30 , I still don't know. So since he's being so coy, I figure he's a mysterian, and I give up at that point.
Any being which would desire to be worshiped is not worthy of being worshipped
What we look like could be a simulation. We could be hideous.
Maybe there are good and evil simulators and they don't like each other.
完全赞同两位大学者的观点：AI 将接手科学家的难题，并轻松解决。 th-cam.com/video/82oKSkpe0ZE/w-d-xo.html
Angels dancing on the head of a pin …..
This podcast is struggling to get views. It's over for Michael. No longer sought out by people.
You can learn everything from Star Trek (minus the latest garbage ones).
Of course, wearing a leather jacket, indoors😂
The mystery of consciousness only exists if you are trying to shoe horn it into a reductionist materialist framework..your simplistic view of reality is the problem not consciousness.
Oh, come on! Vulcans practice suppressing their emotions because their entire planet was constantly consumed in war!
Next you are going to tell me that stoicism means no emotions.
I love you guys, I really do. But when you say things like, "we'll need to regulate the creation of deepfakes" as though that is a genuine solution, you might as well be saying, "we should regulate the creation of street drugs." Ivory tower thinking
I wonder if Michael is wearing pants
Also, what's the point of a simulation other than the programmers entertainment. Simulated people, eating simulated food, having simulated children and having simulated deaths. What 's the point? All inventions, creations, ideas all made up. No point.
David Chalmers , The poster boy for ignorance and superstition.