I think Andy Clark's line of enquiry is a good one. He is trying to solve the meta problem of consciousness. That is, why do we think consciousness is mysterious in the first place. And I think it might be possible to build a mind from first principles, just from understanding what a mind needs to do (from a functional point of view) and evolutionary pressures. e.g. a mind would need to construct an inner 'model' of the world and of the self.
"a mind would need to construct an inner 'model' of the world and of the self" And the builder would need to keep in mind that the 'world' on which the model would be based is not the forest, savannah or highland moor but people, culture... civilization. Civilization has recently (only 10 millennia) become our ecological niche which complexifies the model quite *immensely* . With this in mind one can begin to imagine that humanity is uniquely conscious if one appreciates the idea that our co-evolved-civilization-ecological-niche is entirely responsible for our becoming conscious. Most people intuit that other animal species are conscious but that may be only because it's natural for conscious humans to project their own nature into animals who have with us so much in common. Etc.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL I totally agree that humans have many minds. [All intelligence is collective intelligence - Michael Levin] Evidence for this is that we all struggled to contain our own emotions. But I am also inclined to think that many other animals would have the phenomenal aspects of consciousness (because I can see how it would provide a useful function).
@@audiodead7302 About other animal species... If you are familiar with the theory of evolution then you will know that all the other species have no need to be conscious like we do. The 'fit', in survival of the fittest, refers to the adaptation of a species to its ecological niche. Where a sexually randomized set of genes does not result in an organism able to survive in its species' ecological niche, then that organism dies and its responsible genes are eliminated from the species' gene pool. This process leaves fit organisms only. An organism's sense organs convert impinging energies into data. This data is automatically analyzed by the organism's brain. The results of analysis control synthesis of signals that control the muscles to produce behaviors which, most of the time, result in survival and reproduction. So long as this 'instinctive' behavior succeeds more than half the time across the species then the species will continue and not go extinct (and obviously destruction of an ecological niche is catastrophic for the species that fit in it). There is no need in all of this for the organism to be conscious. Evolution has made survival automatic, i.e. not conscious. A look at human behaviors reveals the majority of them to be automatic. I need to be conscious only in order to communicate with you, for example.
One thing is for sure, consciousness is NOT purely limited to the body. I have had various Out of Body Experiences throughout my life (without taking illegal substances, I might add), and I was able to travel beyond my body and see things which I could not have seen had I not actually been there in some form. I wonder if Quantum Physics has an explanation for this (Entanglement). Somehow our awareness is "non-local" and seemingly can travel away from the physical body. I would've considered this impossible once, until I had my own experiences, which I am pretty confident were not illusions.
I presume you are speaking true; under these circumstances, I would like to know from you how you control your consciousness - when you have separated yourself from the body - (e.g. in the body you take a car, drive a car, accelerate and so on) without a body: how do you travel? Serious question.
@@d.lav.2198 If you don't know, what consciousness looks like, how it can move and what it is capable of, shouldn't you make fun of it, e.g. remember that during your dreams you closed your eyes and still see?
is this a love that is Inherently "straight and true"(without blemish or stain, pretense or deception), or is this a love that might be a "flight of fancy", which might be fulfilling in the moment, but, is susceptible to whim /desire? what was the nature of the human experience that made "love is the way" such a powerful postulate? what were they saying in the bible in the statement, "make straight the way of the lord"? (to see the way of Nature and Man as one process?)
So he basically starts with denying the hard problem of consciousness, then goes on to describe a machine that procedurally mimics human behaviour, and believes this would be consciousness. Really sad to see people not getting the simple fact that behaviour is not the same thing as inner experience.
The problem with his approach is that you cannot rely on behavior to verify wheher or not something is conscious - i.e. whether something is having a first-person, subjective, aware experience. It's such a silly position to take really..... unless you're an NPC... in which case you may be forgiven [by conscious beings capable of forgiveness]. 😂
@@burgercide Yes. It's possible that not all beings, or things that behave intelligently (by your standards of "intelligence"), are aware or experiencing the information they perceive. There is such a thing as intelligence without an observeer.
Andy Clark is assuming, here, that his audience is familiar with the classic epistemological problem of knowledge of other minds. You have nothing to go on but publicly observable events. He does not deny inner experience, but he starts from epistemological solipsism and reverse engineers the likelihood that something that to all intents and purposes is exactly like you has 'inner experience', ie conscious states.
.... then presumably you're smarter, however defined, than all the myriad supposedly ! smart folks globally in the brain sciences who hold AC very highly ? Lisa FB, Barb Findlay, Karl Friston et al.... Notso likely, however vaulted your position suggests.
Hey friend..I would suggest awareness is a property of the STRUCTURE of matter and its potential to carry non-random DENSELY encoded useful information, yes..? These could be anything from bacteria to plants or from there to humans.. From that perspective, "consciousness" or awareness simply evolves in a direct relationship to the DECODERS level of proficiency and utilization of such information. .
@@Bill..Nhey Bill... your suggestion leads to a new question: how did that structure came to be or was formed... was it a product of chance or precise configuration 🤔 because these are two valid alternatives, once you remove such property from matter itself... which (matter), as we know now, is exactly a 'dense' organization/clump of other elementary particles that, from my perspective, seem to follow strict/distinct patterns that are usually associated, mainly, to physical interactions...
@@myscatthat's a valid case... but yet again, since you do possess a form of consciousness then you have to prove that organization of such structures is possible by your consciousness alone 🤔
@myscat Yes, yes.. Obviously true.. Mainly because information can't exist without particles.. The overwhelming majority of all matter, however, does not have a great store of encoded information..
Maybe consciousness happens like the receptors in our nose for smelling where different experiences only line up and fit with the right “shapes” to distinguish between them and somehow through the process of the receptors receiving the signals and the brain processing or translating these signals generates consciousness. That and the ability to store information and to access that information again.
More guests like Dr Clark please! for those who really want to know what consciousness is and stop interviewing the sorcerers that call themselves theologians or philosophers.
There are specific cases that could be studied to get closer to the truth of Robert's questions here, but to just ask some one from an established field to comment in general about such exceptional ideas is definitely asking for someone to rely purely on imaginative speculation.
I always say consciousness evolved just like everything else , we were aware of our surroundings at initial stages to survive the wild, now we are just more aware of our surroundings at a larger scale and have more time to explore as we live at top of the food chain.
The question is why neuronal perception is accompanied by an inner subjective experience. It seems the latter would be unnecessary and/or lacks an adaptive evolutionary function.
Sure maybe biological organsisms became aware or conscious because that was evolutionarily advantageous, however that doesn't mean consciousness as a phenomena is something that evolved or arose from something else.
@@stellarwind1946 I like the term "inner subjective experience" but I am surprised that you don't see some ecological advantage from such a trait. Memory, reason, emotions, self-reflection, etc. all seem to be quite useful for the success of a social species.
There is only one word for both consciousness and awareness in Indian languages , looks like semantics has confused a lot of people . If we stick to just things we are sure about, life becomes simpler. We know if we are aware of not,.for sure. We know an anaesthetic can reduce awareness of pain and also it's memory. Why not leave it at that ? Why the need to dig into a word that was created long time in the past and is most likely to be pointer to nothing
At 00:23 Robert introduces embodied mind, which must surely be the most important development in the history of our life sciences. Why? Because, short-form: bodies wire brains. Long-form: experiences intercepted by bodies wire neuroplastic, DNA-entangled brains. At 2:04, Andy Clark introduces predictive brain (I take it this is an Anil Seth reference). On this I have some disagreement. Predictive brain, if I've interpreted Seth correctly, is a Bayesian inference metaphor. This cannot be correct, imho. Association (semiotics of CS Peirce) is the essential universal principle that explains the cognitive processes of all conscious agents, from amoebae in ponds, to ants in colonies, to neurons in brains, to people in culture. The neo-Darwinian notion of a prewired bran-in-a-vat with its functional specializations etched into its DNA is an egregious pile of nonsense. Beginning around 3:01 Robert hits the nail on the head, why - it's because *so many* belief systems throughout the world have failed to grasp the implications of embodied mind... not just brains in vats but also souls in heaven. At 4:15 that keyword - neural plasticity. At 5:05 - "how we bring the world into view". Yup, indeed. *Everything* that we know - including space and time - we know through the body's engagement with the world, and its wiring of the neuroplastic brain. The neuroplastic brain is a *colony* of neurons, not a computer of circuits. At 6:55 Robert introduces "the mentality starting that" (the predisposition to immerse in simulations). What Robert is alluding to here is the human mind-body's predisposition to language and cultural cognition. Our human mind-bodies, with tongues with which to speak and hands with which to manipulate, predispose us to a cultural richness that other kinds of mind-bodies can never share (intelligent corvids with beaks and intelligent elephants with trunks are pretty smart, but I can't see them getting into simulations). At 7:50 - qualia is mentioned. Qualia cannot be understood properly in the absence of association. Factor Peircean association in with Clark's embodied mind thesis, and we have the beginnings of a most important breakthrough for the life sciences. At 9:26 - "It becomes conceptually incoherent to defend the zombie intuition..." Ok, here we come up against my earlier objection to the predictive Bayesian-inference model. The Bayesian inference algorithm implies that you CAN simulate consciousness. The semiotic association principle, by contrast, implies that you cannot. Why? Because association implies the attribution of meaning, and meaning-attribution, by definition, cannot be simulated. In summary, I side with Clark's deflationary take - yes, the "hard" problem of consciousness is definitely overrated. The semiotic theory of CS Peirce should, imho, be the next crucial step in softening the hard problem, to make it even more accessible. That's my 2-cents for this paradigm-busting topic.
Note that Andy Clark is a physicalist who thinks there is no hard problem, and Dave Chalmers is the foremost proponent of the hard problem as a fundamental issue. Nevertheless, this difference hasn't been any obstacle to their very fruitful collaboration on the concept of extended consciousness. It's a great example of how having different opinions, even on contentious and foundational issues in a field, doesn't have to define our relationships.
I love these consciousness videos with all these experts. Robert should make a series or at least ask questions regarding consciousness and Artificial Intelligence. We could be at the brink of new paradigm shift in human history. We should be asking the right questions now. I hope all this talk about consciousness and souls, will lead to new questions, when the talk involves A.I. I really hope you will implement it at some point. It is very relevant.
those that say there is no hard problem of consciousness are certainly not conscious of their own experiences. I think consciousness exists outside the brain like WiFi and the brain is a receiver.
The means of explaining all the things we say and do will be schematic, mechanical, it won't provide a birds-eye view of the entirety of the organism. It will attempt to abstract aspects of it to a schema. This does indeed look like begging the question as it's saying 'we'll understand consciousness when we've understood everything about beings that are conscious', but the hard problem of consciousness precludes that complete understanding.
There may be limits to what we can understand, sure, but that’s probably true of any of the major positions on the nature of consciousness. Can idealism be proven, or panpsychism, or dualism? Why are there always strident demands that physicalism must be proven, but nobody ever seems to expect the same of the others.
@@simonhibbs887 My feeling after watching this video was that it was nudging me towards something more like religious humility, in flagging up the limitations of what can be known. Though I suppose I ought to delve into whatever schools of thought explore the idea that the error might be in how we conceptualise the physical, maybe there's a bit of juice to squeeze out of that angle?
@@lukeskirenko This issue is really a question of the epistemology of science. What are the limits of what is knowable? As an empiricist I take a cautious approach to this, I think 'reality as it actually is' may be inaccessible to us, the best we can do is consistent descriptions of it. We can't say why it is that way, only that it has these regularities of behaviour for whatever reason. That's a statement about the limitations of our status as observers, so I think we can see how that relates to our status as conscious beings. We are observers of our own consciousness. The same limitation applies, we can only observe that it is so, the underlying reasons for that may also be inaccessible to us. I think this may be a fundamental limitation, so not particularly a flaw in the physicalist view, but a general limitation that applies whatever philosophical position we take.
@@simonhibbs887 Yes, looks like we're in agreement. Though I think there's some additional aspects to the bigger picture that probably tie in with Buddhism... it gets a bit messy, but I think Kant and Buddhism meet somewhere, and I've recently found myself thinking that the various parts, the physical world, biology, consciousness and conceptual thinking, can be put together coherently. How long have you been interested in this area?
@@lukeskirenko I first started thinking about it when I was a teenager in the early 80s. I read a lot of science fiction. Back then I thought in terms of intelligence rather than consciousness though. I read an about Buddhism, Descartes, the philosophy of science, evolution. I studied physics and computer science. TH-cam is a wonderful resource though, there’s so much accessible high quality material. It’s this channel, and others like it, and discussions in comments that has helped be synthesise everything I’ve been thinking into a coherent view in the last 10 years or so.
Dark matter plays an important role because it is the foundation of existence and all particles depend on its wave functions and vibration something similar to the way the ocean foundation works for all sea animals and the ocean also comes with its own wave functions as well. And all sea animals are able to communicate through a digital network of electrons that convert particle information into waves. All this is possible because dark matter is the foundation that holds everything together for existence to grow.
Andy believes that a complete scientific explanation of consciousness is conceivable, and that if such was actually discovered, that the hard problem could go away. Using such a theory you ought to be able to observe and measure the world around you, and detect where conscious existed and where it didn’t, maybe you could even build a machine to detect it. So you take this detector into a room with a bunch of people and it lights up whenever you point it at one of the people, including yourself. Now this is the question: If the detector tells you that the conditions for consciousness exist all around the room, why do you only experience your own, why don’t you experience the consciousness of the other people in the room, what is the difference between here and there such that your particular consciousness attached to your particular body and not to the others? You can tell when someone is talking about the easy problem when they talk about consciousness as an observable fact, like when Andy talks about explaining in minute detail the observations of human being, like when he postulates that if a robot could perfectly mimic a person that it must also experience consciousness. But that’s not the hard problem. The hard problem recognizes that all the other facts in the world, including observations of other people awareness, are contained in the one fact of your conscious experience. The hard problem is not to explain why consciousness exists in the outside world but why it exists in you. I kind of accept that there is a neural correlate of consciousness, that consciousness is tightly bound to the arrangements of matter. But correlation is not equality. The best explanation in the world still can’t explain the uniqueness of you.
>" If the detector tells you that the conditions for consciousness exist all around the room, why do you only experience your own, why don’t you experience the consciousness of the other people in the room, what is the difference between here and there such that your particular consciousness attached to your particular body and not to the others? " Sorry, but that objection makes no sense. A thing does what that thing is doing. It's not doing what other things are doing just because they are doing them. I think what Andy is talking about is that consciousness is something that we do. It's a particular kind of activity. If something is doing that activity, then it is conscious in the way it is going it. We don't yet have a full account of what that activity is and how it works, but when we do, then we will know what consciousness is. That doesn't mean we will experience what each other feels, that a different thing. Will the explanations offered by idealism or dualism let you feel what other beings are feeling? Do you think their failure to do so disproves them?
All reductionists end up being snared in circularity. So, for instance, they want to talk about the sensory but without the least suggestion of integral consciousness. They do this by making untenable leaps from what in AI or robotics is called “sensory” to what we actually experience as sensory. Our ordinary use of that word involves consciousness whereas the so-called “sensory apparatus” of a robot does not. Their arguments amount to a succession of ill-founded, unwarranted analogical jumps, all while trying to conceal their circular premise. It’s quite puerile really, a sort of modern variation on animism.
Robert shined here with excellent questions.. In my humble opinion, Andy is almost certainly giving us a glimpse of what drives consciousness.. Simple, direct, and nothing supernatural required..
@@AlexLifeson1985 Do you have any idea how much physical phenomena we can't explain currently or the reason for concepts like dark matter? Holes in knowledge don't create entities, and philosophers don't have any tools to comment on reality. All of the so-called qualia problems are just language limitations.
1:15 "I think that if we could explain why it is that we say and do all the things that we say and do... then we would have solved the problem." That's a big if. By the same token, IF we could explain why it is that the Universe does all the things that it does... then we would have solved the problem. Since we can only very partially explain *how* it is that we say and do all the things that we say and cannot explain *why* we say and do these things, such approach is unrealistic at best and nonsensical at worst.
Everyone has sophisticated eyes but one needs light to see thing in dark space. Similarly I would expect although one has sophisticatedly structured brain but surely in needs of "something" to recognise and/or to feel information within the information signal. That "something" @ conscious agent brings consciousness.
Good question. I would say so, but only in things with brains. Even if those brains were very simple structures. To be, the only requirement would be the ability to sense, and the ability to remember stored experiences.
Stepping over really. He’s saying there is no hard problem. He’s not alone, a fair few philosophers of consciousness think it’s actually a collection of solvable problems.
@@simonhibbs887 I can see how focussing on embodiment can produce a lot more specific knowledge in terms of how experiences have bodily concommitants. E.g. butterflies in the stomach, the specifics of localised muscular tension that go along with fear, etc.. So one might be able to go quite far in saying that experiential states we tend to think of as emotions are actually quite heavily a result of a set of bodily states. But there's still a gap there in e.g. the apprehension of tension in a muscle, i.e. the conscious experience.
@@lukeskirenko I think embodiment is probably one piece of the puzzle. As he says, it may be a lot of easy problems, with embodied cognition and the predictive brain hypothesis taking a central role. Or at least, they may prove to be good starting points. It's s shame he didn't talk more about the predictive brain.
If a virus is conscious as it reacts to information coming from environment, then an ant is conscious so is the andromeda galaxy and universe is conscious. Being a living organism should not be a basic criterion. Consciousness is a species-based reaction against information which is equal to information contained in universe which travels back and forth faster than light.
A virus is not conscious because it reacts to its environment. A soda can reacts to its environment when you pop the tab. Only things with brains are conscious
I dont think this guy understands the distinction between subject and object very well. First he denies consciousness. Then he goes on to say that a machine could be conscious. Lol dubious af
I would ask different question, how our conciousness works when we're sleeping or when someone is in coma for many years or after the injury? And if conciousness lives after body dies and if conciousness is a spirit/ghost of us after death?
Our senses are the filters on all possible incoming information. But consciousness preceeds language, because a baby handing me my car keys, and taking them back, is learning "to" and " from " and these presuppose " me " and " everyone else ". After that, it hurts my head to think about it 😊
TOMMRROW IS MY DAY , N IS SAYING TO M , I AM NOBODY,NOBODY LOVES EVERY ONE, HAPPY VALENTINES DAY , ALL MY AMORE IN LOVE💗14 FEBRUARY TO ALL MY GOD MOTHERS & FATHERS,
all the tiring hustle , all are thinking they are doing , is done by consciousness, but consciousness knows all things about existence, its just playing with the mind and brain of so called humans , the root is in the understanding the language model & its understanding with brain & mind , the day when anyone truly & intellectually understand the relationship between words & their meaning , all search is over , rest are the fooling system of higher consciousness to overrule the lovver consciousness,, O 13th February Great God M Day celebration
Give to Caesar what's Caesar's. Andy is here completely right.👍👍 Even if his explanation doesn't give the exact practical method to fully manufacture the conscious process artificially now, he is very good in understanding partially how it works correctly.
You have to ask your self what is driving dark energy, if not dark matter itself. The answer will be all particles. And what is dark energy moving around inside. The answer will be it is moving around inside Dark matter which is the one and only foundation for all things to grow and bond together inside of. Dark matter is the one and only main source that creates vibration and waves for all particles to help them send their signals when they need to come together or respond through communicating between each other for better creativity an knowledge and workmanship and for keep a tight Bond. There is no greater supporting than dark matter. Dark matter is also embedded into all particles since the beginning of their creation similar to a child that has the same DNA of it mother. This dark matter DNA inside all particles is one wave function that connects all particles through dark matter vibrations and wave functions triggered by each particle which gave rise to digital information above the world of particles to be pass through dark matter wave and vibrations fields.
Could it be that Consciousness is very easy to understand, model, and predict? Could Consciousness be a good definition of life? Could Consciousness be the source of intelligence?
As a predicate. A predicate. I myself, think of light as conscious(not consciousness) - life forms have consciousness. Light is a kind of conscious, or perhaps more accurate, the principle of. Light is most certainly subtle, radiant, brilliant, pure, unalloyed, simple. Akin to nous of the hypostases - the One, Nouse, Soul.
Maybe consciousness evolved through many things working together for a very long time and evolving different purposes for different parts which were necessary to its survival or was related to repetition of certain activities performed over an extended period of time causing adaptation. Also maybe the ability to communicate at the microscopic level with a certain level of efficiency. Maybe there is a so called “Planck” set of requirements for consciousness to develop. Point is, if working together helped us evolve consciousness, maybe to further evolve our consciousness we need to bring our consciousnesses closer or together or in sync with others somehow and are unable to do it alone. If microbes never began working together, we wouldn’t be here now.
@@Ekam-Sat maybe consciousness is more of a field and we are an oscillation in said field and some things interact more strongly than others in this field but it permeates the universe. I wonder if there is, or what the minimum Planck requirement would be to cause an oscillation in that field or if everything would interact at varying levels. I do enjoy to theorize and hope we discover how things work better in my lifetime but I doubt it.
Consciousness is self awareness. It is not a big mystery as some people make it to be. A body becomes self aware of its environment and itself when it has sensors with an internal computing system. We have several sensors so we are more aware than a coke machine that can sense and respond to a coin and a pulled lever to put out a coke. It is a very low manifestation of consciousness. Now let's make a big deal of this and get confused. 😂😂😂
I think Consciousness is how information feels when it's being processed in complex ways such as when the brain conducts complex calculations in its attempt to make sense of the word around it. **Settles down to watch video**
Robert Lawrence Kuhn is very biased. much referenced in his own opinions and tendencies. I always get the feeling that he leads his interviewees into what he wants them to say. He is not an open-minded interviewer, trying to convey the interviewee's opinions to the public. Manipulates the interview too much. It's outdated, in my opinion.
It must all be consubstantial, there is no other way. Corporeal organism or body, the consciousness thereof sense perception organs and their faculties and activities are contingent and circumscribed to that body; as they arisen in time, too, dies in time. Consciousness(Turiya) as a predicate for Brahman is logical; rendered in english as 'consciousness'. Is okay. Consciousness as predicate for God implies: a type of awareness, all pervasive, simple, peerless, pure, indivisible, unalloyed, non dual, subtle, and so on. Ultimately, all must be of this One, the Source. Consubstantial.
There will be no life and death of the body in first place if conciousness can not survive without living body, even it may not the same form of same conciousness from before.
He shows his concept about conscieusness is keep out consistency neurosience sentence. It is rambling and show conscieusness with bluff proceendings. He doesnt knows nothing about conscieusness neurosience proceendings. Nothing absolutetly.
@@simonhibbs887 Undoubtedly, but then how could he have understood the conversation well enough to criticize it? I imagine he might have had it translated somehow, but even if that is the case, he doesn't present an argument he just invokes ad hominem attacks.
I don’t understand why you insist on taking the shine away from the actual guest, every time I look at the TV you are staring into the camera making sure they are focused on you. Super annoying
"What is Consciousness?" By the look of Andy Clark's hairs, I suspect he is not conscious.. 😂 Seriously, No One knows the elemental components of Awareness that is why Consciousness still remains the biggest mystery in science. This hints Consciousness is NOT PHYSICAL... Consciousness' ability to focus and be aware, with the freedom to decide what is the right choice to make among many choices, can not be a property of physical things that are slaves to physical natural laws, not free.... otherwise physics or physical laws is nothing but "pure science garbage" if matter can make free choices on its own.. ...and because these ability to be aware with free choice, can not be considered property of physical things, then this ability can only belong to a NON- PHYSICAL EXISTENCE that I believe is our free immortal souls who are part of the Holy Spirit. In other words, in this physical world, only humans can be conscious because we have free immortal souls. Yes, of course, humans have conscious immortal souls who are the free observing SUBJECT that receives what the physical brain conveys be it dreams, thoughts, pain and pleasure, emotions, etc., which serve as the OBJECTS being perceived.. Without the aware soul, you are nothing but PHYSICAL SLAVES of Nature, no different from animals that are just driven by natural instincts beyond control, not free and so not accountable, or just like an AI or any Computer driven by a program.. People who do not think they have souls would likely become extreme leftists who think "FREE WILL to CHOOSE" does not exist because they believe that Darwin's IGUANA is their Original Mama, just evolving driven by nature.... but then, mysteriously march in the streets, screaming on top of their lungs, demanding freedom and human rights while thinking they have no free will to choose freedom, like an incoherent funny clowns... sigh... Godlessness can damage your IQ without you even noticing it... so, be very careful when making a choice ..
I think Andy Clark's line of enquiry is a good one. He is trying to solve the meta problem of consciousness. That is, why do we think consciousness is mysterious in the first place. And I think it might be possible to build a mind from first principles, just from understanding what a mind needs to do (from a functional point of view) and evolutionary pressures. e.g. a mind would need to construct an inner 'model' of the world and of the self.
"a mind would need to construct an inner 'model' of the world and of the self"
And the builder would need to keep in mind that
the 'world' on which the model would be based
is not the forest, savannah or highland moor but
people, culture... civilization.
Civilization has recently (only 10 millennia) become our ecological niche
which complexifies the model quite *immensely* .
With this in mind one can begin to imagine that
humanity is uniquely conscious
if one appreciates the idea that
our co-evolved-civilization-ecological-niche
is entirely responsible for our becoming conscious.
Most people intuit that
other animal species are conscious but
that may be only because it's natural for conscious humans
to project their own nature into animals
who have with us so much in common.
Etc.
If you are familiar with Bicameral theory you will know what prompts my comment.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL I totally agree that humans have many minds. [All intelligence is collective intelligence - Michael Levin] Evidence for this is that we all struggled to contain our own emotions. But I am also inclined to think that many other animals would have the phenomenal aspects of consciousness (because I can see how it would provide a useful function).
@@audiodead7302 About other animal species...
If you are familiar with the theory of evolution then
you will know that all the other species
have no need to be conscious like we do.
The 'fit', in survival of the fittest,
refers to the adaptation of a species to its ecological niche.
Where a sexually randomized set of genes
does not result in an organism able to survive in its species' ecological niche,
then that organism dies and
its responsible genes are eliminated from the species' gene pool.
This process leaves fit organisms only.
An organism's sense organs convert impinging energies into data.
This data is automatically analyzed by the organism's brain.
The results of analysis control synthesis of signals that
control the muscles to produce behaviors
which, most of the time, result in survival and reproduction.
So long as this 'instinctive' behavior succeeds
more than half the time across the species then
the species will continue and not go extinct
(and obviously destruction of an ecological niche
is catastrophic for the species that fit in it).
There is no need in all of this for the organism to be conscious.
Evolution has made survival automatic, i.e. not conscious.
A look at human behaviors reveals the majority of them to be automatic.
I need to be conscious only in order to communicate with you,
for example.
I forgot to say...
oh damn, I forgot what it was that needed to be added.
Maybe it will come back to me and I'll add another comment later.
I love Robert's questions
One thing is for sure, consciousness is NOT purely limited to the body. I have had various Out of Body Experiences throughout my life (without taking illegal substances, I might add), and I was able to travel beyond my body and see things which I could not have seen had I not actually been there in some form. I wonder if Quantum Physics has an explanation for this (Entanglement). Somehow our awareness is "non-local" and seemingly can travel away from the physical body. I would've considered this impossible once, until I had my own experiences, which I am pretty confident were not illusions.
How does a consciousness not embodied 'see' anything?? You seez becoz yooz haz eyez, dear.
nothing to do with physical vision, as such.@@d.lav.2198
I presume you are speaking true; under these circumstances, I would like to know from you how you control your consciousness - when you have separated yourself from the body - (e.g. in the body you take a car, drive a car, accelerate and so on) without a body: how do you travel? Serious question.
@@d.lav.2198 If you don't know, what consciousness looks like, how it can move and what it is capable of, shouldn't you make fun of it, e.g. remember that during your dreams you closed your eyes and still see?
@@hildejutta1625 Your brain is a dynamic memory system and - lo and behold - it still works when you are asleep!
Love is all that matters.
A little oxygen is nice too.
is this a love that is Inherently "straight and true"(without blemish or stain, pretense or deception), or is this a love that might be a "flight of fancy", which might be fulfilling in the moment, but, is susceptible to whim /desire? what was the nature of the human experience that made "love is the way" such a powerful postulate? what were they saying in the bible in the statement, "make straight the way of the lord"? (to see the way of Nature and Man as one process?)
Some people's love feels like hate to others
Differentiation within oneness for .... @@BlanBonco
@@Ekam-Sat yeah who gets to decide oneness it becomes circular. Love is molestation war and abuse
So he basically starts with denying the hard problem of consciousness, then goes on to describe a machine that procedurally mimics human behaviour, and believes this would be consciousness. Really sad to see people not getting the simple fact that behaviour is not the same thing as inner experience.
The problem with his approach is that you cannot rely on behavior to verify wheher or not something is conscious - i.e. whether something is having a first-person, subjective, aware experience. It's such a silly position to take really..... unless you're an NPC... in which case you may be forgiven [by conscious beings capable of forgiveness]. 😂
@@Corteum I have to question whether people who hold this position are themselves conscious.
@@burgercide Yes. It's possible that not all beings, or things that behave intelligently (by your standards of "intelligence"), are aware or experiencing the information they perceive. There is such a thing as intelligence without an observeer.
Andy Clark is assuming, here, that his audience is familiar with the classic epistemological problem of knowledge of other minds. You have nothing to go on but publicly observable events. He does not deny inner experience, but he starts from epistemological solipsism and reverse engineers the likelihood that something that to all intents and purposes is exactly like you has 'inner experience', ie conscious states.
.... then presumably you're smarter, however defined, than all the myriad supposedly ! smart folks globally in the brain sciences who hold AC very highly ? Lisa FB, Barb Findlay, Karl Friston et al.... Notso likely, however vaulted your position suggests.
That shirt he's wearing might be conscious.😂
Great comment!!!
It is! At least according to the ancient Veidc/Hindu perspective. EVERYTHING is conscious and made of consciousness.
I need that shirt!
@@d_s_x414 That truly is a nice shirt.
One looks into The Shirt... and The Shirt looks back.
What a great talk. This guy, Andy Clarke, wow he really knows his stuff.
7:25 we still have to solve whether consciousness is a product of structure or a property of matter itself 🤔
Hey friend..I would suggest awareness is a property of the STRUCTURE of matter and its potential to carry non-random DENSELY encoded useful information, yes..? These could be anything from bacteria to plants or from there to humans.. From that perspective, "consciousness" or awareness simply evolves in a direct relationship to the DECODERS level of proficiency and utilization of such information. .
to me its more like both matter and its structure are products of consciousness
@@Bill..Nhey Bill... your suggestion leads to a new question: how did that structure came to be or was formed... was it a product of chance or precise configuration 🤔
because these are two valid alternatives, once you remove such property from matter itself... which (matter), as we know now, is exactly a 'dense' organization/clump of other elementary particles that, from my perspective, seem to follow strict/distinct patterns that are usually associated, mainly, to physical interactions...
@@myscatthat's a valid case... but yet again, since you do possess a form of consciousness then you have to prove that organization of such structures is possible by your consciousness alone 🤔
@myscat Yes, yes.. Obviously true.. Mainly because information can't exist without particles.. The overwhelming majority of all matter, however, does not have a great store of encoded information..
Maybe consciousness happens like the receptors in our nose for smelling where different experiences only line up and fit with the right “shapes” to distinguish between them and somehow through the process of the receptors receiving the signals and the brain processing or translating these signals generates consciousness. That and the ability to store information and to access that information again.
More guests like Dr Clark please! for those who really want to know what consciousness is and stop interviewing the sorcerers that call themselves theologians or philosophers.
you must be a materialist I assume
Andy could have summed up his view on this question in 2 seconds by simply saying: I DON"T KNOW.
Omg you see that! In so many of the videos that's my feeling!
... as opposed to quite a few commenters here who are very clear they know. The genuine vaulted hubris.. Pretty drole.
There are specific cases that could be studied to get closer to the truth of Robert's questions here, but to just ask some one from an established field to comment in general about such exceptional ideas is definitely asking for someone to rely purely on imaginative speculation.
I always say consciousness evolved just like everything else , we were aware of our surroundings at initial stages to survive the wild, now we are just more aware of our surroundings at a larger scale and have more time to explore as we live at top of the food chain.
Free will?
The question is why neuronal perception is accompanied by an inner subjective experience. It seems the latter would be unnecessary and/or lacks an adaptive evolutionary function.
@@PetraKann nope
Sure maybe biological organsisms became aware or conscious because that was evolutionarily advantageous, however that doesn't mean consciousness as a phenomena is something that evolved or arose from something else.
@@stellarwind1946 I like the term "inner subjective experience" but I am surprised that you don't see some ecological advantage from such a trait. Memory, reason, emotions, self-reflection, etc. all seem to be quite useful for the success of a social species.
Get with it Establishment Materialists-Consciousness is primary!
What am I?Answer: I am that which allows me to know that" I exist" or therefore "be" therefore being a conscious knower is what consciousness is.
There is only one word for both consciousness and awareness in Indian languages , looks like semantics has confused a lot of people .
If we stick to just things we are sure about, life becomes simpler.
We know if we are aware of not,.for sure. We know an anaesthetic can reduce awareness of pain and also it's memory.
Why not leave it at that ? Why the need to dig into a word that was created long time in the past and is most likely to be pointer to nothing
Can you imagine doing Acid with this dude.
What up professor Miller!
At 00:23 Robert introduces embodied mind, which must surely be the most important development in the history of our life sciences. Why? Because, short-form: bodies wire brains. Long-form: experiences intercepted by bodies wire neuroplastic, DNA-entangled brains.
At 2:04, Andy Clark introduces predictive brain (I take it this is an Anil Seth reference). On this I have some disagreement. Predictive brain, if I've interpreted Seth correctly, is a Bayesian inference metaphor. This cannot be correct, imho. Association (semiotics of CS Peirce) is the essential universal principle that explains the cognitive processes of all conscious agents, from amoebae in ponds, to ants in colonies, to neurons in brains, to people in culture.
The neo-Darwinian notion of a prewired bran-in-a-vat with its functional specializations etched into its DNA is an egregious pile of nonsense. Beginning around 3:01 Robert hits the nail on the head, why - it's because *so many* belief systems throughout the world have failed to grasp the implications of embodied mind... not just brains in vats but also souls in heaven.
At 4:15 that keyword - neural plasticity. At 5:05 - "how we bring the world into view". Yup, indeed. *Everything* that we know - including space and time - we know through the body's engagement with the world, and its wiring of the neuroplastic brain. The neuroplastic brain is a *colony* of neurons, not a computer of circuits.
At 6:55 Robert introduces "the mentality starting that" (the predisposition to immerse in simulations). What Robert is alluding to here is the human mind-body's predisposition to language and cultural cognition. Our human mind-bodies, with tongues with which to speak and hands with which to manipulate, predispose us to a cultural richness that other kinds of mind-bodies can never share (intelligent corvids with beaks and intelligent elephants with trunks are pretty smart, but I can't see them getting into simulations).
At 7:50 - qualia is mentioned. Qualia cannot be understood properly in the absence of association. Factor Peircean association in with Clark's embodied mind thesis, and we have the beginnings of a most important breakthrough for the life sciences.
At 9:26 - "It becomes conceptually incoherent to defend the zombie intuition..." Ok, here we come up against my earlier objection to the predictive Bayesian-inference model. The Bayesian inference algorithm implies that you CAN simulate consciousness. The semiotic association principle, by contrast, implies that you cannot. Why? Because association implies the attribution of meaning, and meaning-attribution, by definition, cannot be simulated.
In summary, I side with Clark's deflationary take - yes, the "hard" problem of consciousness is definitely overrated. The semiotic theory of CS Peirce should, imho, be the next crucial step in softening the hard problem, to make it even more accessible.
That's my 2-cents for this paradigm-busting topic.
We seem more afflicted with consciousness than endowed with it.
He cannot distinguish what is really conscious from what only appears to be conscious, and yet he thinks he can explain consciousness!
Note that Andy Clark is a physicalist who thinks there is no hard problem, and Dave Chalmers is the foremost proponent of the hard problem as a fundamental issue. Nevertheless, this difference hasn't been any obstacle to their very fruitful collaboration on the concept of extended consciousness. It's a great example of how having different opinions, even on contentious and foundational issues in a field, doesn't have to define our relationships.
Free energy minimization rules! And feelings rule free energy! I just know it!
I love these consciousness videos with all these experts.
Robert should make a series or at least ask questions regarding consciousness and Artificial Intelligence.
We could be at the brink of new paradigm shift in human history. We should be asking the right questions now.
I hope all this talk about consciousness and souls, will lead to new questions, when the talk involves A.I.
I really hope you will implement it at some point. It is very relevant.
those that say there is no hard problem of consciousness are certainly not conscious of their own experiences.
I think consciousness exists outside the brain like WiFi and the brain is a receiver.
The means of explaining all the things we say and do will be schematic, mechanical, it won't provide a birds-eye view of the entirety of the organism. It will attempt to abstract aspects of it to a schema. This does indeed look like begging the question as it's saying 'we'll understand consciousness when we've understood everything about beings that are conscious', but the hard problem of consciousness precludes that complete understanding.
There may be limits to what we can understand, sure, but that’s probably true of any of the major positions on the nature of consciousness. Can idealism be proven, or panpsychism, or dualism? Why are there always strident demands that physicalism must be proven, but nobody ever seems to expect the same of the others.
@@simonhibbs887 My feeling after watching this video was that it was nudging me towards something more like religious humility, in flagging up the limitations of what can be known. Though I suppose I ought to delve into whatever schools of thought explore the idea that the error might be in how we conceptualise the physical, maybe there's a bit of juice to squeeze out of that angle?
@@lukeskirenko This issue is really a question of the epistemology of science. What are the limits of what is knowable? As an empiricist I take a cautious approach to this, I think 'reality as it actually is' may be inaccessible to us, the best we can do is consistent descriptions of it. We can't say why it is that way, only that it has these regularities of behaviour for whatever reason.
That's a statement about the limitations of our status as observers, so I think we can see how that relates to our status as conscious beings. We are observers of our own consciousness. The same limitation applies, we can only observe that it is so, the underlying reasons for that may also be inaccessible to us.
I think this may be a fundamental limitation, so not particularly a flaw in the physicalist view, but a general limitation that applies whatever philosophical position we take.
@@simonhibbs887 Yes, looks like we're in agreement. Though I think there's some additional aspects to the bigger picture that probably tie in with Buddhism... it gets a bit messy, but I think Kant and Buddhism meet somewhere, and I've recently found myself thinking that the various parts, the physical world, biology, consciousness and conceptual thinking, can be put together coherently. How long have you been interested in this area?
@@lukeskirenko I first started thinking about it when I was a teenager in the early 80s. I read a lot of science fiction. Back then I thought in terms of intelligence rather than consciousness though. I read an about Buddhism, Descartes, the philosophy of science, evolution. I studied physics and computer science. TH-cam is a wonderful resource though, there’s so much accessible high quality material. It’s this channel, and others like it, and discussions in comments that has helped be synthesise everything I’ve been thinking into a coherent view in the last 10 years or so.
Dark matter plays an important role because it is the foundation of existence and all particles depend on its wave functions and vibration something similar to the way the ocean foundation works for all sea animals and the ocean also comes with its own wave functions as well.
And all sea animals are able to communicate through a digital network of electrons that convert particle information into waves. All this is possible because dark matter is the foundation that holds everything together for existence to grow.
Don't you mean dark energy? Dark matter makes up around 25% of the mass in the observable universe, while dark energy is about 70%.
Anyone who has an inner life can't take his position seriously. It amounts to a simple denial of reality.
Andy believes that a complete scientific explanation of consciousness is conceivable, and that if such was actually discovered, that the hard problem could go away. Using such a theory you ought to be able to observe and measure the world around you, and detect where conscious existed and where it didn’t, maybe you could even build a machine to detect it. So you take this detector into a room with a bunch of people and it lights up whenever you point it at one of the people, including yourself. Now this is the question: If the detector tells you that the conditions for consciousness exist all around the room, why do you only experience your own, why don’t you experience the consciousness of the other people in the room, what is the difference between here and there such that your particular consciousness attached to your particular body and not to the others?
You can tell when someone is talking about the easy problem when they talk about consciousness as an observable fact, like when Andy talks about explaining in minute detail the observations of human being, like when he postulates that if a robot could perfectly mimic a person that it must also experience consciousness. But that’s not the hard problem. The hard problem recognizes that all the other facts in the world, including observations of other people awareness, are contained in the one fact of your conscious experience. The hard problem is not to explain why consciousness exists in the outside world but why it exists in you.
I kind of accept that there is a neural correlate of consciousness, that consciousness is tightly bound to the arrangements of matter. But correlation is not equality. The best explanation in the world still can’t explain the uniqueness of you.
>" If the detector tells you that the conditions for consciousness exist all around the room, why do you only experience your own, why don’t you experience the consciousness of the other people in the room, what is the difference between here and there such that your particular consciousness attached to your particular body and not to the others? "
Sorry, but that objection makes no sense. A thing does what that thing is doing. It's not doing what other things are doing just because they are doing them.
I think what Andy is talking about is that consciousness is something that we do. It's a particular kind of activity. If something is doing that activity, then it is conscious in the way it is going it. We don't yet have a full account of what that activity is and how it works, but when we do, then we will know what consciousness is. That doesn't mean we will experience what each other feels, that a different thing. Will the explanations offered by idealism or dualism let you feel what other beings are feeling? Do you think their failure to do so disproves them?
All reductionists end up being snared in circularity. So, for instance, they want to talk about the sensory but without the least suggestion of integral consciousness. They do this by making untenable leaps from what in AI or robotics is called “sensory” to what we actually experience as sensory. Our ordinary use of that word involves consciousness whereas the so-called “sensory apparatus” of a robot does not. Their arguments amount to a succession of ill-founded, unwarranted analogical jumps, all while trying to conceal their circular premise. It’s quite puerile really, a sort of modern variation on animism.
Robert shined here with excellent questions.. In my humble opinion, Andy is almost certainly giving us a glimpse of what drives consciousness.. Simple, direct, and nothing supernatural required..
it's not supernatural, but it is not physical.
Robert is always asking the right questions
@@AlexLifeson1985 It's amazing how you would know it's not physical. Do you have one in a jar?
nobody can explain it through physical term at the moment, so then we can assume the opposite.@@eximusic
@@AlexLifeson1985 Do you have any idea how much physical phenomena we can't explain currently or the reason for concepts like dark matter? Holes in knowledge don't create entities, and philosophers don't have any tools to comment on reality. All of the so-called qualia problems are just language limitations.
1:15 "I think that if we could explain why it is that we say and do all the things that we say and do... then we would have solved the problem."
That's a big if. By the same token, IF we could explain why it is that the Universe does all the things that it does... then we would have solved the problem. Since we can only very partially explain *how* it is that we say and do all the things that we say and cannot explain *why* we say and do these things, such approach is unrealistic at best and nonsensical at worst.
An information system
Everyone has sophisticated eyes but one needs light to see thing in dark space.
Similarly I would expect although one has sophisticatedly structured brain but surely in needs of "something" to recognise and/or to feel information within the information signal. That "something" @ conscious agent brings consciousness.
Does Consciousness still exist without Life on Earth ?
Good question. I would say so, but only in things with brains. Even if those brains were very simple structures. To be, the only requirement would be the ability to sense, and the ability to remember stored experiences.
@@dr_shrinker You're confusing Consciousness with Awareness.
What is unconsciousness and more importantly, what causes it ?
Well, in my case, drinking too much.
Hmm, this just side-steps the hard problem of consciousness.
Stepping over really. He’s saying there is no hard problem. He’s not alone, a fair few philosophers of consciousness think it’s actually a collection of solvable problems.
@@simonhibbs887 I can see how focussing on embodiment can produce a lot more specific knowledge in terms of how experiences have bodily concommitants. E.g. butterflies in the stomach, the specifics of localised muscular tension that go along with fear, etc.. So one might be able to go quite far in saying that experiential states we tend to think of as emotions are actually quite heavily a result of a set of bodily states. But there's still a gap there in e.g. the apprehension of tension in a muscle, i.e. the conscious experience.
@@lukeskirenko I think embodiment is probably one piece of the puzzle. As he says, it may be a lot of easy problems, with embodied cognition and the predictive brain hypothesis taking a central role. Or at least, they may prove to be good starting points. It's s shame he didn't talk more about the predictive brain.
You are not 'born' into a body. You are a body born into the world.
If a virus is conscious as it reacts to information coming from environment, then an ant is conscious so is the andromeda galaxy and universe is conscious. Being a living organism should not be a basic criterion. Consciousness is a species-based reaction against information which is equal to information contained in universe which travels back and forth faster than light.
A virus is not conscious because it reacts to its environment. A soda can reacts to its environment when you pop the tab. Only things with brains are conscious
So, how long before AI becomes self-conscous? Might have been an interesting question to ask modern experts about the phenomena of consscoussnesss.
I dont think this guy understands the distinction between subject and object very well.
First he denies consciousness. Then he goes on to say that a machine could be conscious. Lol dubious af
Theses are old but still worth watching
Wasn't this interviewer in like every single Woody Allen movie?
Finally a straightforward defense of commonsense approach to consciousness in the era of panpsychism fad.
Defense? Why does he need to defend his position? Is it falling apart or something
@@Corteumusing the word defend in this context is just a way to speak shout rebutting criticisms against a view or arguing for a view
I would ask different question, how our conciousness works when we're sleeping or when someone is in coma for many years or after the injury? And if conciousness lives after body dies and if conciousness is a spirit/ghost of us after death?
You are eternal. All of us really are. We are all the same eternal one. We are just different in life so not to be alone.
You’re correct. Consciousness is reducible by the physical brain.
8:32 God, please no! Just not robots that will behave like humans !!!
;)
Our senses are the filters on all possible incoming information. But consciousness preceeds language, because a baby handing me my car keys, and taking them back, is learning "to" and " from " and these presuppose " me " and " everyone else ".
After that, it hurts my head to think about it 😊
TOMMRROW IS MY DAY , N IS SAYING TO M , I AM NOBODY,NOBODY LOVES EVERY ONE, HAPPY VALENTINES DAY , ALL MY AMORE IN LOVE💗14 FEBRUARY TO ALL MY GOD MOTHERS & FATHERS,
all the tiring hustle , all are thinking they are doing , is done by consciousness, but consciousness knows all things about existence, its just playing with the mind and brain of so called humans , the root is in the understanding the language model & its understanding with brain & mind , the day when anyone truly & intellectually understand the relationship between words & their meaning , all search is over , rest are the fooling system of higher consciousness to overrule the lovver consciousness,, O 13th February Great God M Day celebration
Give to Caesar what's Caesar's.
Andy is here completely right.👍👍
Even if his explanation doesn't give the exact practical method to fully manufacture the conscious process artificially now, he is very good in understanding partially how it works correctly.
“If we build a robot.” The robot did not build itself? It needed a higher intelligence to build it. Why?
You have to ask your self what is driving dark energy, if not dark matter itself.
The answer will be all particles.
And what is dark energy moving around inside.
The answer will be it is moving around inside Dark matter which is the one and only foundation for all things to grow and bond together inside of.
Dark matter is the one and only main source that creates vibration and waves for all particles to help them send their signals when they need to come together or respond through communicating between each other for better creativity an knowledge and workmanship and for keep a tight Bond.
There is no greater supporting than dark matter.
Dark matter is also embedded into all particles since the beginning of their creation similar to a child that has the same DNA of it mother.
This dark matter DNA inside all particles is one wave function that connects all particles through dark matter vibrations and wave functions triggered by each particle which gave rise to digital information above the world of particles to be pass through dark matter wave and vibrations fields.
Did this guy get permission to use your video? th-cam.com/video/nNcFroWzjeg/w-d-xo.html
Could it be that Consciousness is very easy to understand, model, and predict? Could Consciousness be a good definition of life? Could Consciousness be the source of intelligence?
As a predicate. A predicate.
I myself, think of light as conscious(not consciousness) - life forms have consciousness. Light is a kind of conscious, or perhaps more accurate, the principle of. Light is most certainly subtle, radiant, brilliant, pure, unalloyed, simple. Akin to nous of the hypostases - the One, Nouse, Soul.
Maybe consciousness evolved through many things working together for a very long time and evolving different purposes for different parts which were necessary to its survival or was related to repetition of certain activities performed over an extended period of time causing adaptation. Also maybe the ability to communicate at the microscopic level with a certain level of efficiency. Maybe there is a so called “Planck” set of requirements for consciousness to develop. Point is, if working together helped us evolve consciousness, maybe to further evolve our consciousness we need to bring our consciousnesses closer or together or in sync with others somehow and are unable to do it alone. If microbes never began working together, we wouldn’t be here now.
Consciousness is not emergent but fundamental. The big bang is the initial singularity. Not that it matters. What matters is love.
@@Ekam-Sat very well possible. I’ve considered panpsychism. Very interesting to consider
@@Ekam-Satno. Consciousness is reducible. You need only look At Alzheimer’s patients for proof.
@@Ekam-Sat maybe consciousness is more of a field and we are an oscillation in said field and some things interact more strongly than others in this field but it permeates the universe. I wonder if there is, or what the minimum Planck requirement would be to cause an oscillation in that field or if everything would interact at varying levels. I do enjoy to theorize and hope we discover how things work better in my lifetime but I doubt it.
I agree. I believe all waves are verily the sea. I understand the significance of Genesis 2:18. It all comes down to companionship. I@@Wtf-eva
Consciousness is self awareness. It is not a big mystery as some people make it to be. A body becomes self aware of its environment and itself when it has sensors with an internal computing system. We have several sensors so we are more aware than a coke machine that can sense and respond to a coin and a pulled lever to put out a coke. It is a very low manifestation of consciousness. Now let's make a big deal of this and get confused. 😂😂😂
Meditation is the language for deeper interaction with consciousness.
I think Consciousness is how information feels when it's being processed in complex ways such as when the brain conducts complex calculations in its attempt to make sense of the word around it.
**Settles down to watch video**
You are God playing hide and seek with itself 😉
Do robots dream?
Robert wants god, Andy is sticking with reality.
God is reality
Robert Lawrence Kuhn is very biased. much referenced in his own opinions and tendencies. I always get the feeling that he leads his interviewees into what he wants them to say. He is not an open-minded interviewer, trying to convey the interviewee's opinions to the public. Manipulates the interview too much. It's outdated, in my opinion.
Genetics, environment and memory condition consciousness.
Quantum Information and Quantum Entanglement....are Fundamental.
So, basically he has no clue.
Whatsoever.
It must all be consubstantial, there is no other way.
Corporeal organism or body, the consciousness thereof sense perception organs and their faculties and activities are contingent and circumscribed to that body; as they arisen in time, too, dies in time.
Consciousness(Turiya) as a predicate for Brahman is logical; rendered in english as 'consciousness'. Is okay. Consciousness as predicate for God implies: a type of awareness, all pervasive, simple, peerless, pure, indivisible, unalloyed, non dual, subtle, and so on.
Ultimately, all must be of this One, the Source. Consubstantial.
Utterly baseless nonsense - love it 😁
There will be no life and death of the body in first place if conciousness can not survive without living body, even it may not the same form of same conciousness from before.
Nah. You need a brain to have consciousness, but you don’t need consciousness to have a brain.
I thought Sid Vicious died.
The videos are sometimes so old , it might even be pre-dino Era
Punk hair more like Johnny Rotten 😂.
@kipponi You're right an all! I got my pistols mixed up
He shows his concept about conscieusness is keep out consistency neurosience sentence. It is rambling and show conscieusness with bluff proceendings. He doesnt knows nothing about conscieusness neurosience proceendings. Nothing absolutetly.
He's probably able to spell it correctly though.
Your spellings gave me brain damage.
You can't even write a coherent sentence.
@@b.g.5869 Come on, he's probably not a native English speaker.
@@simonhibbs887 Undoubtedly, but then how could he have understood the conversation well enough to criticize it? I imagine he might have had it translated somehow, but even if that is the case, he doesn't present an argument he just invokes ad hominem attacks.
I don’t understand why you insist on taking the shine away from the actual guest, every time I look at the TV you are staring into the camera making sure they are focused on you. Super annoying
"What is Consciousness?"
By the look of Andy Clark's hairs, I suspect he is not conscious.. 😂
Seriously, No One knows the elemental components of Awareness that is why Consciousness still remains the biggest mystery in science. This hints Consciousness is NOT PHYSICAL...
Consciousness' ability to focus and be aware, with the freedom to decide what is the right choice to make among many choices, can not be a property of physical things that are slaves to physical natural laws, not free.... otherwise physics or physical laws is nothing but "pure science garbage" if matter can make free choices on its own..
...and because these ability to be aware with free choice, can not be considered property of physical things, then this ability can only belong to a NON- PHYSICAL EXISTENCE that I believe is our free immortal souls who are part of the Holy Spirit. In other words, in this physical world, only humans can be conscious because we have free immortal souls.
Yes, of course, humans have conscious immortal souls who are the free observing SUBJECT that receives what the physical brain conveys be it dreams, thoughts, pain and pleasure, emotions, etc., which serve as the OBJECTS being perceived..
Without the aware soul, you are nothing but PHYSICAL SLAVES of Nature, no different from animals that are just driven by natural instincts beyond control, not free and so not accountable, or just like an AI or any Computer driven by a program..
People who do not think they have souls would likely become extreme leftists who think "FREE WILL to CHOOSE" does not exist because they believe that Darwin's IGUANA is their Original Mama, just evolving driven by nature.... but then, mysteriously march in the streets, screaming on top of their lungs, demanding freedom and human rights while thinking they have no free will to choose freedom, like an incoherent funny clowns... sigh...
Godlessness can damage your IQ without you even noticing it... so, be very careful when making a choice ..