It's sad to see the aging process of people I greatly respect and admire. Robert, I don't know if you'll ever see this comment.. I just want to show appreciation for everything you've accomplished with the Closer to Truth series. There is not anything else like it. I'll forever watch every episode again and again. Please tell David that there are people who greatly admire him. Thank you for everything, Robert. May you live and prosper for decades to come
Really appreciate, Josh; makes my day (as I prepare for new CTT productions later this year). Your gracious words mean a good deal to all of us at Closer To Truth and to me personally. Much thought and work go into each episode - sometimes for a year or more - and it is gratifying to know that it is appreciated. As for the aging process, alas, we resist as we can.... I exercise every day, including two hours of intense table tennis with top coaches twice a week and non-stop weightlifting three days a week (though with much lighter weights than in bygone days). Onward - we are on the same journey. Robert
Yes the sadness of aging process but of course this is all based upon human desires. Take trees, a big beautiful tree that in Autumn the leaves start to die and light up the world with a beauty that the tree did not have before the leaves were dying. And even when the tree itself grows old and dies one day there's a kind of dignity a haunting reminder of maybe some deeper truth. The human personality was not meant for immortality, an immortality is just some kind of desire based upon a human notion. We are not the center of the universe, and neither are human aspirations accomplishments and desires. Far far from it. But of course we humans don't think that way and so aging and death is sad. The Earth itself was found out not to be the center of the universe and also that the Earth will not last forever.
@@grosbeak6130 I totally disagree. I think that attitude is an emergent property of humans' tendency to conquer. Once they've conquered survival, they continue on to conquer each other (ever hear of cannibals?), until they can no longer survive. That's why the USA was formed (to flee Europe), and then took the land away from the Indians (to avoid dealing with "lesser" people). They failed to listen to the Indians when they tried to say that they (their physical bodies) required their (own) land (a physical place) to exist (in this physical universe) (a scientific fact). Not being "smart/genius/scientist" does not not make anyone wrong. But now, all we have are dead Indians still trying to say "I told you so.".
They won't because they keep posting variations of the same questions that nobody can answer, so they can make money from clicks on their videos from idiots that keep looking for an answer, and never find anything but a re-post of a video from 10 years ago (or a week ago, because this channel thinks you're stupid).
@@bingobango4840 there is no evidence that the purpose of this channel is solely making money. And there would be nothing wrong with that if that were the case, and secondly if you think that looking for those answers is idiotic, sit in the corner and watch whatever it is that makes you fee comfy.
@Carl Sagan paradigm? That makes no sense. Matter is matter and has nothing to do with consciousness. In what is most likely, a multiverse of perhaps 10 to the 500 different manafolds and constants. Even if a pocket universe only consists of Plasma. Plasma is still a state of matter. You need to watch Frank Wilczek Nobel Laureate in particle physics as well. Let him dismiss your misguided understanding. Respectfully.
@@1stPrinciples455 This reality is consistent with a simulation and a dream. You don’t have to remain addicted to it forever. You are not a prisoner and so can leave at any time.
I greatly respect Chalmers not because I agree or disagree with him; but, his intellectual fearlessness to loudly declare propositions that could easily be career destroying and cop intense ridicule from the scientific community, which Chalmer's has received. Yet, here we are, easily 30+ years since Chalmer's articulated The Hard Problem, and the scientific community still have no adequate response. Philosophy of Mind is one of the most exciting areas of research to watch unfold.
This topic reminds me of the tendency of scientists and philosophers in the 19th century to think of nature and especially the human body in terms of the leading technologies of that time. The human body was simply a mechanical system like a steam engine. Feed a cold, starve a fever is a case in point. New, unimagined technologies were developed and people thought of nature in terms of those new technologies. In the future, I imagine, we will have other new technologies and philosophers will be arguing reality in terms of those.
Doesn't this bias simply exist because as technology advances we are coming closer to being able to build machines such as ourselves? We can understand steam engines and computers, yet future AI's will claim consciousness and we will be unable to judge or decide as we do not understand even our own. We are not mechanical machines, we are not mental processing organs, we are not even the information itself contained within our brains. We are the information processing flow shared between our system and the environment. My consciousness includes that external environmental information even if I have yet to become aware of it, JUST as my conscious includes all the stored information in my unconsciousness that I am also unaware of at this moment. Our understanding of consciousness is biased by our self solvency. We are the flow of information back and forth, back and forth... It could be argued that our consciousness, flowed through the informational processes of our parents, their parents, on back through evolution, the universe, straight through the laws of physics right up to the big bang. This isn't pan-psychism for me. We are different. We are the only pieces of matter (we know of) capable of self reporting on limited pieces of this informational flow. Informational processes (ie. consciousness) simply flow through us and since we see it in our heads, makes us think it's us.
Ultimately it's all a dream and consciousness itself. Comparing it to technologies is too materialistic imo. It just IS. Like the ancient mystics understood.
I agree, except for "Feed a cold, starve a fever". And, that includes using ice for fevers. When one gets a fever, the body is trying to do some "work". Instead of hindering it, I think we should help it, so it doesn't have to do so much work. When I got a fever, I climbed into bed under a blanket (and hot chicken soup wasn't that bad either).
Calling Chalmers brilliant is like your children calling you brilliant. They don't know any better. Chalmers is an ee.dee.ot about the nature of consciousness, reality, and god.
As David alluded to, but I didn't hear clearly state, the Fermi paradox is solidly answered by the sim theory. For me, this is among the most convincing points about it.
Fantastic discussion. One lingering question. Why does no one in the context of your topics Robert, with the exception of Michio Kaku by another interviewer, at least acknowledge within your episodes, the DOD UAP videos? Michio stated, they are not proof but they are indeed evidence. I would even go one step further Robert. This topic must be discussed anytime the Fermi paradox is mentioned! The government acknowledges they are real and yet not a single scientist in your interviews will touch the subject. Nor have you introduced it into your discussions. Respectfully, am I off base?
I totally agree with your comments Frank. During this discussion, I realised that Robert has not addressed the mounting evidence that we are encountering something unusual in our skies and oceans. Hopefully, this subject can be investigated on this channel.
@@briandmadden8545 maybe if more of us make the same request? Any discussion of the topic would be a welcome subject in his otherwise brilliant episodes. Plus, he interviews scientists and philosophers who have highly speculative ideas, such as Donald Hoffman. Even Paul Davies, Rupert guy with his Morphic Resonance theory
Robert your question at the 10 min mark about the enormous amount of computational power required to simulate an entire universe is perhaps best looked at from the point of view of the observer and the idea of superposition. It is not all being computed and rendered simultaneously. Perhaps the superposition state is a state prior to being rendered relative to a particular observer. The rendered "image" (image here not just referring to a visual image) is within the cognitive apparatus of the observer. Looking at it in this way we can see how the computational power is being economized, whereby what is not observed is not being rendered.
Wow! Loved this interview! I really admire your tireless quest in delving into the hardest problems of all. Where does such boundless energy come from? Perhaps this is another one of those really difficult questions to answer! Thanks for sharing your journey with us!
Love the show love this podcast format to go more in depth with guests. I have learned so much from Closer to Truth. Great way to maintain a rigorous approach to the philosophical without the nonsensical mysticisms of many philosophers. Not to say there is anything wrong with the mysterious.
Don't know what mystics youre referring to, but if you're not a coward, you can experience god first hand via 5-MEO, then you'll realize every last thing you believe is completely wrong and that Chalmers is an 'educated idiot'
Do you still have a deal with PBS and will your show be returning, I hope/pray??? Your show changed what I think about and great new perspectives. Thank you!!!!
If I understand correctly, one of Chalmers' points is that a simulation includes all views: dualism, panpisquism, materialism, etc. So maybe our lack of consensus is why, these multiple possibilities of interpretations.
I think simulation theory is helpful to get around the philosophy zombie problem. Really makes you have to decide about how to act. If you create a world in which the participants feel, interact, and have our behaviors but they lack consciousness can you kill them? Etc. no matter the reality you’re going to run the spectrum of materialist through idealist philosophies. It’s been going on for 5000+ years and I personally don’t think it’s going to stop
Love your channel and thank you for this interview with DC! I really enjoy listening to him often, I purchased his book via audible last week and it’s great!
I'm thinking that the only way to process an intersection of incoming sensory input is to have a "perspective" part of the brain that thinks that it is a "self" but can't really locate itself. This intersection would be part visual processing, part audio processing, touch, etc... In order for the organism to do this is to generate a sense of "being" . In a sensory deprivation environment, this intersection will generate a reality in order to maintain itself. We know that we experience reality by taking sensory input and generating an environment, locating our position within that environment and THEN we can presumably navigate within reality using this generated world as a reference. The visual cortex is only partially involved, as are the other areas involved with the senses, but where do they all connect together, and how?
Interesting point that all interactive simulations involve a form of dualism, the external world of the simulation and the internal world of the incarnated avatar.
I am a layman and so probably wrong but for me this universe is not different from a virtual one. Assume it were possible to run a world in a computer and assume the beings in it had consciousness then they would think they had "real mass while we would smile and think nothing there had real mass. But do we have "real mass"? Is matter not in essence "caged force or energy"? and are forces not coming very close to pure mathematical descriptions of what must happen ? What energy really is, is hard to tell. We know it only through what it does.
Exactly. In once sense it doesn’t matter if we are in a simulation or if we are spirits reincarnating again and again. What matters is we seem to have something called consciousness and that comes with existence and morality. At least that’s how I see it. It doesn’t matter what level world you’re in you’re going to have to figure out how best to interact with that environment. Be it digital, be it a copy, be it an illusion that part only matters in the sense of it could help find better ways to interact
35:23 ("As far as I can tell, there is no reason to restrict consciousness to the biological") It's rare that Chalmers trips up. Biological life is the only life we know. He can't draw conclusions from an assumption when all facts point to the opposite. The most natural hypothesis must be constantly diminishing consciousness during magical "transfer" to silicon, akin to falling asleep in slow motion, and death at 100% "completion" at the latest. Nothing points to the fact that "copying consciousness to silicon" is possible. Where in academia does this hopefulness come from? Robert's follow-up question was right on the money. Then afterwards, talking about zombies, Chalmers doubles down on downplaying the singular and unique importance of biology for consciousness (calls it "bio-chauvism"). What a stunning change of mind.
virtual worlds, can not be truth, even, if, is exists somewhere else’s, but can not be trusted, until you are physically there, and you have received an invitation to be there , as we’re living at present time!
I think it's impossible for a virtual anything to have it's own consciousness. I think it's Big Tech trying to recruit gullible people into believing their excuse of "it's not my fault". The only thing Artificial intelligence can do, is pull S(imulated) H(alographic) I(maging) T(asks) out of its A(ssumably) S(ophisticared) S(torage).
For computer simulation, digital information organisms or units able to form own perceptions of reality and program three dimension physical matter by itself?
We are each an embodied being with a singular perspective on the universe. The word reality refers to our external experience, whatever it is. There is only one Reality, but there are infinite perspectives on it, in time, space, and scale. Any transcendent idea is unverifiable and therefore indistinguishable from fiction.
Thank you. I really enjoyed this discussion. It raises a number of questions, for example, much of the discussion seemed to happen outside time and physicality. If we are the product of 200,000 years of evolution and much of what we have learned has been passed on from one to another, and that we have both evolved and learned through a physical relationship within the world, how would it be possible to upload the consequences to AI and in particular AI that has a different physical relationship with its environment. I don't know why it occurred to me, but someone once explained to me that when you enjoy the scent of a rose, it is because you inhale physical parts of that rose.
I think that everyone is born with consciousness (it's just so small and weak that nobody notices it. Another paradox). A lot of people just don't try to exercise it. Or deny it, to escape responsibility and excuse their behavior (the devil made me do it). But, one thing is for sure. The more you're qualified for, the more you can do. And, the more you're aware/conscious of, the more you know what you're doing. And, if they don't know how to drive, then they should get off the road.
They solved the Transporter problem with that episode where Barkely(TNG) rescued some people in the transporter stream and demonstrated how the traveler is remaining conscious during transport. Though they left out any sort of explanation.
Excellent podcast. I think the complaint about bio-chauvinism may be thinking of it in a superficial manner. If we think of it this way it may make sense. 1. It is not biology per se that is required for producing the phenomenon we call consciousness. Instead, it is complexity above a certain threshold. I think most people will agree with that. 2. In our universe with given laws of physics, space, time, energy, and lastly matter, which basically means atoms and molecules, the easiest way to produce complexity maybe by not having complex fundamental objects, but instead composing simple components like atoms into complex structures - molecules. 3. There are about 118 kinds of different atoms available on the menu to form molecules. Imagining the space of all possible molecules and carving out the subvolume whereby the molecules with complexity that exceeds the required threshold. Given the 4 covalent bonds of carbon, it appears that is the key atom that forms long and complex molecules in conditions that exist on planets like Earth. It is even possible that in that subvolume of molecule space there may not be any molecules that do not involve Carbon. 4. That is why biology naturally blossomed based on organic chemistry. Heck, it may even be an Imperative. 5. Based on the above it makes sense to be bio-chauvinistic which actually means carbon-chauvinistic especially if one thinks of naturally evolved life. 6. It takes naturally started life to evolve into intelligent life over long periods of time to then engineer complexity of gradually increasing complexity using non-organic material like silicon because to build very large complexity with small amount of material and volume the transistor making process is suitable. But to make conscious creatures we may find that we will have to build them using organic chemistry...brain organelles. I think David should talk to Sara Walker/Lee Cronin about their Assembly theory, Assembly numbers, and complexity.
Does consciousness require perceptions of reality unique to that organism, which when interact with reality creates subjective emotions or conscious feeling from the organism's unique perception of reality?
Many thanks for a mind-blowing chat with Chalmers. Your pointed and well-informed questions alone justify listening to this. Anyway, my take on all this is to reject the Bostrom simulation hypothesis and Chalmers extension of “simulation realism” out of hand. It’s an amusing postulation. But it’s pure unfounded philosophy, without a scientific foundation - namely, rigorous proof of confirmation or falsification. Because “you cannot rule something out” offers no sound intellectual predicate to make definitive statements. After all, we also cannot rule out that simulation theory is pure hogwash. It’s all grand speculation in my view. Now on the other hand, if physicist Jim Gates is right that our physical reality exhibits “error codes” suggesting we are living in someone else’s simulation, that would be another story.
And to your point, whatever happened to that Jim Gates supposedly profound finding? I have not heard one single follow up or response from his peers. So, they just let it go without further investigation, other published rebuttals papers? What gives?
How can information bits, whether natural or digital, become three dimension reality? What does it take for quantum information to become classic reality?
That's easy. Those info-bits somehow come to your attention; and they inspire you to make a piece of art or whatever. Or maybe it inspires you to learn how to make things.
What is the difference between information of physical nature and digital information as far as being used for simulation? Can digital information be used for emergent properties such as those that appear in physical nature?
Physical "nature" is what it is. It needs no input to be itself. It's only a consciousness that turns that into info. Digital info has been inputted into the digital "world". It wasn't what it is, until some entity made it so.
Bit perplexed at the answer by Guilio Tonino to the last question as it sounded a like a circular definition so I‘ll give an alternative: to the question ‚what is the implication of this definition of consciousness?‘ another answer might be: ‚the everlasting and timeless now, thanks to the big bang and the creation of time, can be digitized into a lifetime of unique experiences‘
David seems to be saying that the Hard Problem of consciousness is hard. That is well and good. However, when that is extrapolated to mean an insoluble problem, then I have to take an issue with that. And if one does that, then I consider it similar to the "Shutup and Calculate" dogma in the world of quantum mechanics - which basically stopped any progress in the understanding of quantum physics for 70 years (read Adam Baker's What is real? book). The idea was that it is impossible to understand how QM works, let us just use it to calculate (which works very well BTW) blindly applying the QM equations. Luckily some scientists are ignoring the "Shutup and Calculate" dogma and forging ahead to try to understand the fundamentals of QM. Along the same lines let us forget/ignore the Hard Problem of Consciousness (which chokes the progress) and instead focus on what Anil Seth calls the Real Problem of Consciousness and chip away at it thru neuroscience, brain bio-electro-chemistry, and psychology research.
The other day I asked Google whether AI was capable of Epoche in the Husserl sense. The AI answer was No! Because it lacks certain features of self-awareness in order to conduct this operation. My inward smile must have radiated through my eyes,
If it were the case that DNA has consciousness for biological organisms, then might something like quantum wave function have program for basic consciousness in physical reality? Is there a way to determine if DNA has or developed from quantum mechanics?
@DavidChalmers, I agree with you. I had a project in mind to create a company that builds single real world simulation tool. One that can account for real world physics(as much as possible), precise models(graphics) and any programmed sequences needed. Then another company to physical builds\sells stuff that tests well through simulations. Material\Mechanical Sciences plays a big part here. 3D printers will be a key item.
There are some born with only a Walnut size part of the brain stem and still have a conscious experience…react emotionally to outside stimuli…But if that part of the stem is damaged the lights go out…no inner experience…Is this small point the irreducible receiver of consciousness…?
Is the physical information in biological brain neurons three dimensional, however microscopic, which can develop larger three dimensional physical information, such as muscle and nerve actions and the ability to perceive conscious reality? Does digital information currently lack the abilities to perceive and act consciously?
Brilliant talk 👍 Chalmers Reality+ is highly relevant to the Hi-Reality hypothesis that I started to develop a few years ago. Can’t wait to interview him one day on my channel.
Can bits of information, both physical nature and digital, come from energy? What kind of energy could bring about digital reality similar to physical nature?
@@dennisr.levesque2320 Consciousness isn’t limited to our individual field of perception. There are MANY regular humans right here on earth who make incredible claims and have uncanny sway with the material world. For instance, many meditators, and even myself, have been able to communicate with Nature in some demonstrable way. (Being alerted to sudden changes in the weather, being guided safety despite difficult odds etc) Matter is just the form Awareness has chosen to take. And when humans form Awareness, we think we’re the only ones observing.😂
@@kxlot79 There are many different kinds of consciousnesses. If you speak of Consciousness in general, then the topic must remain in general. If you speak of a specific consciousness, then the topic must remain specific. In other words, all Beagles are dogs, but not all dogs are Beagles. A specific individual's consciousness IS limited to that one's individual perception. "Our Individual Perception" conflates the individual/specific with the collective/general. Have you ever heard of "Consciousness By Proxy"? You couldn't have, because I just made it up, right here, right now (an emergent phenomenon). It refers to an entity accepting into its consciousness, as fact, the testimony of a believable eyewitness. Most cultural "facts" are the result of a consensus of beliefs (by proxy) held by non-eye-witness believers, derived from the testimony of believable eye witnesses. If that eye witness, by some million to one chance got it wrong, then an untrue opinion is accepted as fact. That's how stereotypes get started (among other things). Therefore, one can be deceived into thinking that he is aware. There are other entities besides Awareness that bring things into this world. Then, when Awareness and Unawareness meet, there is by definition a conflict of opinion. Nobody wants to be wrong. So, both sides declare, "I'm right, and you're wrong!". This is why due process is so important. It attempts to weed out mistakes, errors, scams, hallucinated "facts", hidden agendas, stupidity, and the like. You may be right. But, declaring it does not make it so. Without evidence/justification/persuasion/convincing (either offered or requested), there can remain a sliver of a doubt that can resurface later into a dispute that can escalate into a good/evil, us/them, my way or the highway, life or death confrontation. It happens all the time. You yourself might fall victim to it. Don't be so quick to condemn it. You yourself might have to resort to it. Then, you yourself can be condemned by the very criteria you insist on, or the "wisdom" you spread. Others could accuse you of the same thing you accused them of. It could be that only one person/entity actually did observe/perceive it correctly. Wouldn't you really hate it, if that one person was YOU?
Can a simulation be created just from the information bits, what kind of information bits are used? If so, it may be possible to tell if simulation or not from the information bit being used? As an example, might be able to tell if biological life simulated or not from the information bits used for biological life?
Brilliant philosophers. Do you think there is a way , for example a question or an observation, that can we can ask a zombie, in order to confirm 100% that they are conscious? If not, then I guess we have to use probability or confident level to determine consciousness. Then, are you two a Bayesian or frequentist regarding your calculation method? I want to know your view on how to approach the hard problem.
This notion that the computational power to compute our universe would be too much to accomplish reminds me of a point by Chris Langan, that is that our universe is in fact doing exactly this already! It would be some kind of belief in magic to see our universe as not having to coordinate (e.g. where exactly are these laws of physics and exactly how are they enforced?) its own function. To think that it would take more to simulate it than to coordinate it is already just admitting that we have no idea how the laws of physics are actually accomplished.
Could Boltzmann brain be captured within an organism? Might a Boltzmann brain for organism be constantly regenerated, like atoms and molecules in human body are being regenerated?
This is a more profound question than it appears to be. It's similar to the age old chicken/egg question. It also depends on one's perspective. Inspiration can come from many different sources. Remember the saying, "Necessity is the mother of invention."? Well, I disagree. I think inspiration is the mother of invention. I think a better question to ask is, "What inspires you/me?".
![Are We Living in a Simulation with David Chalmers [S3 Ep.12]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ndDK_99kMaw/mqdefault.jpg)
It's sad to see the aging process of people I greatly respect and admire. Robert, I don't know if you'll ever see this comment.. I just want to show appreciation for everything you've accomplished with the Closer to Truth series. There is not anything else like it. I'll forever watch every episode again and again. Please tell David that there are people who greatly admire him. Thank you for everything, Robert. May you live and prosper for decades to come
Really appreciate, Josh; makes my day (as I prepare for new CTT productions later this year). Your gracious words mean a good deal to all of us at Closer To Truth and to me personally. Much thought and work go into each episode - sometimes for a year or more - and it is gratifying to know that it is appreciated.
As for the aging process, alas, we resist as we can.... I exercise every day, including two hours of intense table tennis with top coaches twice a week and non-stop weightlifting three days a week (though with much lighter weights than in bygone days). Onward - we are on the same journey. Robert
Yes the sadness of aging process but of course this is all based upon human desires. Take trees, a big beautiful tree that in Autumn the leaves start to die and light up the world with a beauty that the tree did not have before the leaves were dying. And even when the tree itself grows old and dies one day there's a kind of dignity a haunting reminder of maybe some deeper truth. The human personality was not meant for immortality, an immortality is just some kind of desire based upon a human notion. We are not the center of the universe, and neither are human aspirations accomplishments and desires. Far far from it. But of course we humans don't think that way and so aging and death is sad. The Earth itself was found out not to be the center of the universe and also that the Earth will not last forever.
@@grosbeak6130 100% agreed - so eloquently said. Thank you!!!!!
@@grosbeak6130 I totally disagree. I think that attitude is an emergent property of humans' tendency to conquer. Once they've conquered survival, they continue on to conquer each other (ever hear of cannibals?), until they can no longer survive. That's why the USA was formed (to flee Europe), and then took the land away from the Indians (to avoid dealing with "lesser" people). They failed to listen to the Indians when they tried to say that they (their physical bodies) required their (own) land (a physical place) to exist (in this physical universe) (a scientific fact). Not being "smart/genius/scientist" does not not make anyone wrong. But now, all we have are dead Indians still trying to say "I told you so.".
I disagree, i think the aging process is one of life’s greatest beauties!
I've learn so much from this channel. I hope you never stop posting videos.
I dont understand how a channel with this much information is not popular as it should be
Well they'll eventually have to stop because nobody lives forever
They won't because they keep posting variations of the same questions that nobody can answer, so they can make money from clicks on their videos from idiots that keep looking for an answer, and never find anything but a re-post of a video from 10 years ago (or a week ago, because this channel thinks you're stupid).
@@bingobango4840 there is no evidence that the purpose of this channel is solely making money. And there would be nothing wrong with that if that were the case, and secondly if you think that looking for those answers is idiotic, sit in the corner and watch whatever it is that makes you fee comfy.
X2
i wish robert good health so he can do these amazing podcasts long time to come, his guests are always amazing as well
I am convinced that our teachers of ancient wisdom were telling us the truth: consciousness is exploring itself.
Trying to make sense of your comment.
Do you mean consciousness is not an emergent property of a complex neural network?
One analogy would be that by using the same ingredients many different recipes can emerge.
@Carl Sagan paradigm? That makes no sense. Matter is matter and has nothing to do with consciousness. In what is most likely, a multiverse of perhaps 10 to the 500 different manafolds and constants. Even if a pocket universe only consists of Plasma. Plasma is still a state of matter. You need to watch Frank Wilczek Nobel Laureate in particle physics as well. Let him dismiss your misguided understanding. Respectfully.
Energy at its most fundamental has structure? ?
@@1stPrinciples455 This reality is consistent with a simulation and a dream. You don’t have to remain addicted to it forever. You are not a prisoner and so can leave at any time.
You have created the best project about nature of reality I’ve ever encountered. Thank you for that!
Very correct. I agree 👍
x2
I concur! In my mind absolutely no doubt about it.
How do you define "reality"? - Whose reality?
Peter codher,what you think of bernardo kastrup,and what about hameroff and Penrose orch theory.
Always love listening to David's perspectives on things
I greatly respect Chalmers not because I agree or disagree with him; but, his intellectual fearlessness to loudly declare propositions that could easily be career destroying and cop intense ridicule from the scientific community, which Chalmer's has received. Yet, here we are, easily 30+ years since Chalmer's articulated The Hard Problem, and the scientific community still have no adequate response. Philosophy of Mind is one of the most exciting areas of research to watch unfold.
This topic reminds me of the tendency of scientists and philosophers in the 19th century to think of nature and especially the human body in terms of the leading technologies of that time. The human body was simply a mechanical system like a steam engine. Feed a cold, starve a fever is a case in point. New, unimagined technologies were developed and people thought of nature in terms of those new technologies. In the future, I imagine, we will have other new technologies and philosophers will be arguing reality in terms of those.
Doesn't this bias simply exist because as technology advances we are coming closer to being able to build machines such as ourselves? We can understand steam engines and computers, yet future AI's will claim consciousness and we will be unable to judge or decide as we do not understand even our own. We are not mechanical machines, we are not mental processing organs, we are not even the information itself contained within our brains. We are the information processing flow shared between our system and the environment. My consciousness includes that external environmental information even if I have yet to become aware of it, JUST as my conscious includes all the stored information in my unconsciousness that I am also unaware of at this moment. Our understanding of consciousness is biased by our self solvency. We are the flow of information back and forth, back and forth... It could be argued that our consciousness, flowed through the informational processes of our parents, their parents, on back through evolution, the universe, straight through the laws of physics right up to the big bang.
This isn't pan-psychism for me. We are different. We are the only pieces of matter (we know of) capable of self reporting on limited pieces of this informational flow. Informational processes (ie. consciousness) simply flow through us and since we see it in our heads, makes us think it's us.
Ultimately it's all a dream and consciousness itself. Comparing it to technologies is too materialistic imo. It just IS. Like the ancient mystics understood.
I agree, except for "Feed a cold, starve a fever". And, that includes using ice for fevers. When one gets a fever, the body is trying to do some "work". Instead of hindering it, I think we should help it, so it doesn't have to do so much work. When I got a fever, I climbed into bed under a blanket (and hot chicken soup wasn't that bad either).
@@BroadcaststoNowhere I think this bias is an emergent property of humans' tendency to dismiss others achievements and exaggerate their own.
Yes, that's a very good point, Jim! :) Well done!
Thank you Robert. These chats are always amazing.
I may not always agree, but I have always enjoyed listening to David Chalmers's views.
Same here. I will certainly read his book, but I think he has ultimately fallen for the Bit psychosis.
Brilliant! Both David and Robert. A joy to listen (as usual).
Calling Chalmers brilliant is like your children calling you brilliant. They don't know any better. Chalmers is an ee.dee.ot about the nature of consciousness, reality, and god.
This streak that Robert started would go forever.
I do love watching these two together
I loved this interview, David is one the best in modern time, his perspectives are far ahead of time and very much worth pursuing.
As David alluded to, but I didn't hear clearly state, the Fermi paradox is solidly answered by the sim theory. For me, this is among the most convincing points about it.
Makes sense. Our “reality” change with time!
Fantastic discussion. One lingering question. Why does no one in the context of your topics Robert, with the exception of Michio Kaku by another interviewer, at least acknowledge within your episodes, the DOD UAP videos? Michio stated, they are not proof but they are indeed evidence. I would even go one step further Robert. This topic must be discussed anytime the Fermi paradox is mentioned! The government acknowledges they are real and yet not a single scientist in your interviews will touch the subject. Nor have you introduced it into your discussions. Respectfully, am I off base?
well-said, Frank…nobody says a word, eh bro.???!🙄
I totally agree with your comments Frank. During this discussion, I realised that Robert has not addressed the mounting evidence that we are encountering something unusual in our skies and oceans.
Hopefully, this subject can be investigated on this channel.
@@briandmadden8545 maybe if more of us make the same request? Any discussion of the topic would be a welcome subject in his otherwise brilliant episodes. Plus, he interviews scientists and philosophers who have highly speculative ideas, such as Donald Hoffman. Even Paul Davies, Rupert guy with his Morphic Resonance theory
Perhaps he or an admin will notice your post. Cheers
One of the hardest things to understand in philosophy is why Robert hasn't interviewed Bernardo Kastrup yet
Bernardo is brilliant, but possibly on the wrong side of the pond or dominant paradigm.
You have to watch the BK versus Sabena as well as BK against
another interrupted podcast to understand this. 31:43
I cannot get enough of your channel...brilliant.....mind expanding....
I’m a greater believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it.”
Great conversation
Robert your question at the 10 min mark about the enormous amount of computational power required to simulate an entire universe is perhaps best looked at from the point of view of the observer and the idea of superposition. It is not all being computed and rendered simultaneously. Perhaps the superposition state is a state prior to being rendered relative to a particular observer. The rendered "image" (image here not just referring to a visual image) is within the cognitive apparatus of the observer. Looking at it in this way we can see how the computational power is being economized, whereby what is not observed is not being rendered.
Great interview! I enjoy these more than the TV show format.
Best channel on TH-cam. Always a pleasure to watch.
Wow! Loved this interview! I really admire your tireless quest in delving into the hardest problems of all. Where does such boundless energy come from? Perhaps this is another one of those really difficult questions to answer! Thanks for sharing your journey with us!
As a P-Zombie, I'm very sad that David Chalmers doubts my existence.
Are O-Zombies capable of irony?
I look forward to becoming the gardener on the Holodeck. Just hope I will be reminded to water the plants, but not too much.
David charmers is one of my favorites. Bring back the hair Dave
Love the show love this podcast format to go more in depth with guests. I have learned so much from Closer to Truth. Great way to maintain a rigorous approach to the philosophical without the nonsensical mysticisms of many philosophers. Not to say there is anything wrong with the mysterious.
Don't know what mystics youre referring to, but if you're not a coward, you can experience god first hand via 5-MEO, then you'll realize every last thing you believe is completely wrong and that Chalmers is an 'educated idiot'
Just one small positive thought in the morning can change your whole day.” - Dalai Lama
Well thank you for blowing a rainbow up our butts.
@@grosbeak6130 there is almost infinitely more wisdom in those 13 words than this video.
Do you still have a deal with PBS and will your show be returning, I hope/pray??? Your show changed what I think about and great new perspectives. Thank you!!!!
If I understand correctly, one of Chalmers' points is that a simulation includes all views: dualism, panpisquism, materialism, etc. So maybe our lack of consensus is why, these multiple possibilities of interpretations.
I think simulation theory is helpful to get around the philosophy zombie problem. Really makes you have to decide about how to act. If you create a world in which the participants feel, interact, and have our behaviors but they lack consciousness can you kill them? Etc. no matter the reality you’re going to run the spectrum of materialist through idealist philosophies. It’s been going on for 5000+ years and I personally don’t think it’s going to stop
Love the Globe!!
I love this channel.
Might causation provide energy needed for digital information bits to produce computer simulation?
Love your channel and thank you for this interview with DC! I really enjoy listening to him often, I purchased his book via audible last week and it’s great!
Chalmers is a doom.ash.
Go listen to Donald Hoffman, Bernardo Kastrup, and a few hundred NDE testimonies on Jeff Mara's channel.
Robert, you should have an in-depth talk with Bernardo Kastrup :)
Scheduled for next year - was scheduled two years ago, but Mr. Covid had other plans
@@CloserToTruthTV Looking forward to that!
I miss metal head Chalmers. Boy, the years just fly by....
Closer too the truth... I love this channel ❤
Advaita vedanta, explained most clearly by Swami Sarvapriyanda, brought into this discussion would be super interesting.
Nothing better than the good zombie snippet to inaugurate this video.
I'm thinking that the only way to process an intersection of incoming sensory input is to have a "perspective" part of the brain that thinks that it is a "self" but can't really locate itself. This intersection would be part visual processing, part audio processing, touch, etc...
In order for the organism to do this is to generate a sense of "being" .
In a sensory deprivation environment, this intersection will generate a reality in order to maintain itself. We know that we experience reality by taking sensory input and generating an environment, locating our position within that environment and THEN we can presumably navigate within reality using this generated world as a reference. The visual cortex is only partially involved, as are the other areas involved with the senses, but where do they all connect together, and how?
Interesting point that all interactive simulations involve a form of dualism, the external world of the simulation and the internal world of the incarnated avatar.
All people have to do is change our language around reality and consciousness understanding
i would also very like an interview with Bernardo Kastrup ...
I choose to die like a real world person. My Creator has my will and my every breath. Thank you.⚘
I am a layman and so probably wrong but for me this universe is not different from a virtual one.
Assume it were possible to run a world in a computer and assume the beings in it had consciousness then they would think they had "real mass while we would smile and think nothing there had real mass. But do we have "real mass"? Is matter not in essence "caged force or energy"? and are forces not coming very close to pure mathematical descriptions of what must happen ? What energy really is, is hard to tell. We know it only through what it does.
Exactly. In once sense it doesn’t matter if we are in a simulation or if we are spirits reincarnating again and again. What matters is we seem to have something called consciousness and that comes with existence and morality. At least that’s how I see it. It doesn’t matter what level world you’re in you’re going to have to figure out how best to interact with that environment. Be it digital, be it a copy, be it an illusion that part only matters in the sense of it could help find better ways to interact
35:23 ("As far as I can tell, there is no reason to restrict consciousness to the biological") It's rare that Chalmers trips up. Biological life is the only life we know. He can't draw conclusions from an assumption when all facts point to the opposite. The most natural hypothesis must be constantly diminishing consciousness during magical "transfer" to silicon, akin to falling asleep in slow motion, and death at 100% "completion" at the latest. Nothing points to the fact that "copying consciousness to silicon" is possible. Where in academia does this hopefulness come from?
Robert's follow-up question was right on the money. Then afterwards, talking about zombies, Chalmers doubles down on downplaying the singular and unique importance of biology for consciousness (calls it "bio-chauvism"). What a stunning change of mind.
The BBC are looking for a new Dr. Who. It occurred to me that David Chalmers would be an excellent candidate.
what does one eat in a virtual reality? and are the bathrooms well marked?
virtual worlds, can not be truth, even, if, is exists somewhere else’s, but can not be trusted, until you are physically there, and you have received an invitation to be there , as we’re living at present time!
I've watched your old videos with David he looked like a rock star with the long hair my how time changes people and it goes by so fast
For virtual worlds to become conscious reality, do digital information bits need to develop into three dimensional matter?
I think it's impossible for a virtual anything to have it's own consciousness. I think it's Big Tech trying to recruit gullible people into believing their excuse of "it's not my fault".
The only thing Artificial intelligence can do, is pull S(imulated) H(alographic) I(maging) T(asks) out of its A(ssumably) S(ophisticared) S(torage).
Would networking of information be needed in computer simulation for emergence? What does the networking of information in a computer simulation?
For computer simulation, digital information organisms or units able to form own perceptions of reality and program three dimension physical matter by itself?
Might the entire universe be considered a kind of simulation from energy producing information bits of matter?
We are each an embodied being with a singular perspective on the universe. The word reality refers to our external experience, whatever it is. There is only one Reality, but there are infinite perspectives on it, in time, space, and scale. Any transcendent idea is unverifiable and therefore indistinguishable from fiction.
Wonderful video !!!
Thank you. I really enjoyed this discussion. It raises a number of questions, for example, much of the discussion seemed to happen outside time and physicality. If we are the product of 200,000 years of evolution and much of what we have learned has been passed on from one to another, and that we have both evolved and learned through a physical relationship within the world, how would it be possible to upload the consequences to AI and in particular AI that has a different physical relationship with its environment. I don't know why it occurred to me, but someone once explained to me that when you enjoy the scent of a rose, it is because you inhale physical parts of that rose.
Causation in the structure of artificial intelligence, computer simulation, or virtual reality brings consciousness (although not personal identity)?
I think that everyone is born with consciousness (it's just so small and weak that nobody notices it. Another paradox). A lot of people just don't try to exercise it. Or deny it, to escape responsibility and excuse their behavior (the devil made me do it). But, one thing is for sure. The more you're qualified for, the more you can do. And, the more you're aware/conscious of, the more you know what you're doing. And, if they don't know how to drive, then they should get off the road.
They solved the Transporter problem with that episode where Barkely(TNG) rescued some people in the transporter stream and demonstrated how the traveler is remaining conscious during transport. Though they left out any sort of explanation.
Excellent podcast.
I think the complaint about bio-chauvinism may be thinking of it in a superficial manner. If we think of it this way it may make sense.
1. It is not biology per se that is required for producing the phenomenon we call consciousness. Instead, it is complexity above a certain threshold. I think most people will agree with that.
2. In our universe with given laws of physics, space, time, energy, and lastly matter, which basically means atoms and molecules, the easiest way to produce complexity maybe by not having complex fundamental objects, but instead composing simple components like atoms into complex structures - molecules.
3. There are about 118 kinds of different atoms available on the menu to form molecules. Imagining the space of all possible molecules and carving out the subvolume whereby the molecules with complexity that exceeds the required threshold. Given the 4 covalent bonds of carbon, it appears that is the key atom that forms long and complex molecules in conditions that exist on planets like Earth. It is even possible that in that subvolume of molecule space there may not be any molecules that do not involve Carbon.
4. That is why biology naturally blossomed based on organic chemistry. Heck, it may even be an Imperative.
5. Based on the above it makes sense to be bio-chauvinistic which actually means carbon-chauvinistic especially if one thinks of naturally evolved life.
6. It takes naturally started life to evolve into intelligent life over long periods of time to then engineer complexity of gradually increasing complexity using non-organic material like silicon because to build very large complexity with small amount of material and volume the transistor making process is suitable. But to make conscious creatures we may find that we will have to build them using organic chemistry...brain organelles.
I think David should talk to Sara Walker/Lee Cronin about their Assembly theory, Assembly numbers, and complexity.
This was a really cool comment. Sometimes people are smart and write well 🙂.
@@117Industries Thanks!
Does causation have existence beyond physical reality? Causation can enter physical reality from beyond?
Does consciousness require perceptions of reality unique to that organism, which when interact with reality creates subjective emotions or conscious feeling from the organism's unique perception of reality?
Many thanks for a mind-blowing chat with Chalmers. Your pointed and well-informed questions alone justify listening to this.
Anyway, my take on all this is to reject the Bostrom simulation hypothesis and Chalmers extension of “simulation realism” out of hand. It’s an amusing postulation.
But it’s pure unfounded philosophy, without a scientific foundation - namely, rigorous proof of confirmation or falsification.
Because “you cannot rule something out” offers no sound intellectual predicate to make definitive statements. After all, we also cannot rule out that simulation theory is pure hogwash. It’s all grand speculation in my view.
Now on the other hand, if physicist Jim Gates is right that our physical reality exhibits “error codes” suggesting we are living in someone else’s simulation, that would be another story.
And to your point, whatever happened to that Jim Gates supposedly profound finding? I have not heard one single follow up or response from his peers. So, they just let it go without further investigation, other published rebuttals papers? What gives?
How can information bits, whether natural or digital, become three dimension reality? What does it take for quantum information to become classic reality?
That's easy. Those info-bits somehow come to your attention; and they inspire you to make a piece of art or whatever. Or maybe it inspires you to learn how to make things.
What is the difference between information of physical nature and digital information as far as being used for simulation? Can digital information be used for emergent properties such as those that appear in physical nature?
Physical "nature" is what it is. It needs no input to be itself. It's only a consciousness that turns that into info. Digital info has been inputted into the digital "world". It wasn't what it is, until some entity made it so.
Bit perplexed at the answer by Guilio Tonino to the last question as it sounded a like a circular definition so I‘ll give an alternative: to the question ‚what is the implication of this definition of consciousness?‘ another answer might be: ‚the everlasting and timeless now, thanks to the big bang and the creation of time, can be digitized into a lifetime of unique experiences‘
David seems to be saying that the Hard Problem of consciousness is hard. That is well and good. However, when that is extrapolated to mean an insoluble problem, then I have to take an issue with that. And if one does that, then I consider it similar to the "Shutup and Calculate" dogma in the world of quantum mechanics - which basically stopped any progress in the understanding of quantum physics for 70 years (read Adam Baker's What is real? book). The idea was that it is impossible to understand how QM works, let us just use it to calculate (which works very well BTW) blindly applying the QM equations. Luckily some scientists are ignoring the "Shutup and Calculate" dogma and forging ahead to try to understand the fundamentals of QM. Along the same lines let us forget/ignore the Hard Problem of Consciousness (which chokes the progress) and instead focus on what Anil Seth calls the Real Problem of Consciousness and chip away at it thru neuroscience, brain bio-electro-chemistry, and psychology research.
The other day I asked Google whether AI was capable of Epoche in the Husserl sense. The AI answer was No! Because it lacks certain features of self-awareness in order to conduct this operation. My inward smile must have radiated through my eyes,
Did anyone ask him what his motive was in turning his globe upside down? I love the defiance, but still would like to hear his explanation.
If it were the case that DNA has consciousness for biological organisms, then might something like quantum wave function have program for basic consciousness in physical reality? Is there a way to determine if DNA has or developed from quantum mechanics?
Consider that what we experience as consciousness and being is magnitudes less than what our creators experience if we were/are in a simulation.
and consider what one creator must experience in that case.
@DavidChalmers, I agree with you. I had a project in mind to create a company that builds single real world simulation tool. One that can account for real world physics(as much as possible), precise models(graphics) and any programmed sequences needed. Then another company to physical builds\sells stuff that tests well through simulations. Material\Mechanical Sciences plays a big part here. 3D printers will be a key item.
Can extended mind be carried all the way to everything being part of one mind?
Only if everything agrees to being part of that one mind. But you should know how elusive peace on Earth is.
There are some born with only a Walnut size part of the brain stem and still have a conscious experience…react emotionally to outside stimuli…But if that part of the stem is damaged the lights go out…no inner experience…Is this small point the irreducible receiver of consciousness…?
Does physical nature / universe have networking of information like human brain?
Is the physical information in biological brain neurons three dimensional, however microscopic, which can develop larger three dimensional physical information, such as muscle and nerve actions and the ability to perceive conscious reality? Does digital information currently lack the abilities to perceive and act consciously?
Could mathematics have a role in cause and effect, especially effect from causation?
No doubt about it. But, what caused math?
Crazy stuff!
*This* is the Twilight Zone 😅😮💨
Still waiting to hear from Berlinski in this channel...
Life is but a dream😉
Could human consciousness / mind come from networking of information, and networking of information come from energy directed by neurons?
No. The networking of info must come from a consciousness (human or otherwise). Otherwise it's just a bunch of data with nowhere to go.
Brilliant talk 👍 Chalmers Reality+ is highly relevant to the Hi-Reality hypothesis that I started to develop a few years ago. Can’t wait to interview him one day on my channel.
Can bits of information, both physical nature and digital, come from energy? What kind of energy could bring about digital reality similar to physical nature?
EVERYTHING in existence brings/has information. It is what it is. But, it takes a consciousness to make sense of it all.
@@dennisr.levesque2320 Consciousness isn’t limited to our individual field of perception.
There are MANY regular humans right here on earth who make incredible claims and have uncanny sway with the material world.
For instance, many meditators, and even myself, have been able to communicate with Nature in some demonstrable way. (Being alerted to sudden changes in the weather, being guided safety despite difficult odds etc)
Matter is just the form Awareness has chosen to take. And when humans form Awareness, we think we’re the only ones observing.😂
@@kxlot79 There are many different kinds of consciousnesses. If you speak of Consciousness in general, then the topic must remain in general. If you speak of a specific consciousness, then the topic must remain specific. In other words, all Beagles are dogs, but not all dogs are Beagles. A specific individual's consciousness IS limited to that one's individual perception. "Our Individual Perception" conflates the individual/specific with the collective/general. Have you ever heard of "Consciousness By Proxy"? You couldn't have, because I just made it up, right here, right now (an emergent phenomenon). It refers to an entity accepting into its consciousness, as fact, the testimony of a believable eyewitness. Most cultural "facts" are the result of a consensus of beliefs (by proxy) held by non-eye-witness believers, derived from the testimony of believable eye witnesses. If that eye witness, by some million to one chance got it wrong, then an untrue opinion is accepted as fact. That's how stereotypes get started (among other things). Therefore, one can be deceived into thinking that he is aware. There are other entities besides Awareness that bring things into this world. Then, when Awareness and Unawareness meet, there is by definition a conflict of opinion. Nobody wants to be wrong. So, both sides declare, "I'm right, and you're wrong!". This is why due process is so important. It attempts to weed out mistakes, errors, scams, hallucinated "facts", hidden agendas, stupidity, and the like.
You may be right. But, declaring it does not make it so. Without evidence/justification/persuasion/convincing (either offered or requested), there can remain a sliver of a doubt that can resurface later into a dispute that can escalate into a good/evil, us/them, my way or the highway, life or death confrontation. It happens all the time. You yourself might fall victim to it. Don't be so quick to condemn it. You yourself might have to resort to it. Then, you yourself can be condemned by the very criteria you insist on, or the "wisdom" you spread. Others could accuse you of the same thing you accused them of.
It could be that only one person/entity actually did observe/perceive it correctly. Wouldn't you really hate it, if that one person was YOU?
If physical reality effected by causation, then simulation effected by causation also reality?
Yes but its fragile and limiting
I think these ideas are affecting my paintings😊
Can a simulation be created just from the information bits, what kind of information bits are used? If so, it may be possible to tell if simulation or not from the information bit being used? As an example, might be able to tell if biological life simulated or not from the information bits used for biological life?
Is it possible to contact David Chalmers?
Brilliant philosophers. Do you think there is a way , for example a question or an observation, that can we can ask a zombie, in order to confirm 100% that they are conscious? If not, then I guess we have to use probability or confident level to determine consciousness. Then, are you two a Bayesian or frequentist regarding your calculation method? I want to know your view on how to approach the hard problem.
That depends on whether you're referring to a literal or metaphorical zombie. A literal zombie probably doesn't have internet.
Lawrence when you getting Susskind and Smolin to debate?
This notion that the computational power to compute our universe would be too much to accomplish reminds me of a point by Chris Langan, that is that our universe is in fact doing exactly this already! It would be some kind of belief in magic to see our universe as not having to coordinate (e.g. where exactly are these laws of physics and exactly how are they enforced?) its own function. To think that it would take more to simulate it than to coordinate it is already just admitting that we have no idea how the laws of physics are actually accomplished.
What about the hardware required?
Well in hypothetical worlds we basically “figured that out” lol
Will you have simulated DNA as opposed to “real” dna as a defining factor?
Could Boltzmann brain be captured within an organism? Might a Boltzmann brain for organism be constantly regenerated, like atoms and molecules in human body are being regenerated?
Is physical nature based on information similar to virtual worlds / reality?
This is a more profound question than it appears to be. It's similar to the age old chicken/egg question. It also depends on one's perspective. Inspiration can come from many different sources. Remember the saying, "Necessity is the mother of invention."? Well, I disagree. I think inspiration is the mother of invention. I think a better question to ask is, "What inspires you/me?".
Computer science is still very young , what may be possible in the future ? Even just a few hundred years ?
The best!
What does consideration of simulation say about physical reality? Human mind imagining simulation has a substantive existence?
the last remarks is marvelous ..........are we sur you are the same person every day you walkup???????????