Intro to Integrated Information Theory (IIT 4.0) for Cognitive Neuroscientists and Psychologists
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 มิ.ย. 2024
- Additional resources:
IIT3.0:
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24811...
PyPhi - the Python implementation of IIT:
journals.plos.org/ploscompbio...
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi....
TH-cam:
• IIT 3.0 Tutorial | Tsu...
GitHub:
github.com/wmayner/pyphi
Google colab:
colab.research.google.com/dri...
Nao Tsuchiya lab's paper (example use of IIT 3.0 on neural data):
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33635...
Towards IIT4.0:
www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/12/...
Giulio Tononi's recent talk on the latest revision of Integrated Information Theory:
• BWC 2021 - Rolf Kotter... - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
What a time to be alive :)
okay Heisenberg
Two Minute Papers
What's stopping someone from creating some strange meaningless dynamical system with a huge number of interacting nodes, that has a large phi, but is not representing anything about the world or interacting with any external stimuli?
Casually Rickroll the audience
Great analysis - subscribed.
Great explaination
Your 2d consciousness map can be expressed as a linear function of bandwidth ...expanding upwards in frequency
9:29 that sounds like a rickroll
did... did I just get rickroll'd?
Okay. Everything correlates with math. But WHO is the one that experiencing it ? Where is the math of I AM this or that ? This can't be proved cause of Kurt Godel incompleteness theorem
This guy talks so fast I thought my video was at 1.5x speed
I call BS on this. These methodologies might have some value in some field someday but I don't think it will bring our understanding one step nearer to what consciousness is. You have one axis for degree of consciousness and one for content, but no clear concept of what consciousness itself is. If you have no clear idea of what you are looking for, how will you know if you find it?
This was interesting -even EXCELLENT-but it doesn’t get at the FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTIONS. You have to change and re-order the fundamental assumptions. At least 4 of them, all at once. Any one of them cannot change with the other 3 remaining intact. This is the huge wall standing in front of change. I re-ordered them and changed the requisite foundations in my work over the last 20 years. The problem with the institutions is that they are based on networked foundational assumptions and those who give funding look for exactly that in awarding funding. This is the main reason we (they, actually) cannot see what consciousness actually is. Literally everything that exists is relevant and must be included in the theory. The way you do it is to see the actual distilled essence of what everything is. The relevant information. Not the irrelevant. Minds used to strategies and social networking are not set up to do this. Their information priorities are different. I have an experimental methodology, predictions, and statistical significance far beyond any other theory. But people still don’t understand or pay attention. It’s like the gorilla walking through the basketball game. I’m beyond dumbfounded that no one sees what I have done. Furthermore it offers a real test for consciousness in AI. Literally solves ALL THE PROBLEMS. Yet I can’t even get anyone to listen-yet they later come up with tiny pieces of the theory and dive in like Giulio Tononi and “integrated information” which I wrote about 20 years before he did the detailed math. Which made him sorta myopic and not see the real value in the idea because of the assumptions… so frustrating because I can see it but all these people are delaying getting there when HUMAN LIVES depend upon getting there ASAP. Not even joking. 😐🤷♀️ In a nutshell it’s like going to Silicon Valley and funding and interviewing only the older companies and not the startup entrepreneurs who leave the establishment. What would happen? HEAR THAT SCREECHING NOISE? It’s you putting the brakes on the future, destroying the innovation of a nation.
There is a huge difference between mere high IQ and genius. I find it hard to even speak with people because they automatically judge my words with several wrong assumptions. And as soon as I violate one of their wrong assumptions they stop listening. I would like to see if there is anyone who might have a suggestion on what I should do? I would like to appeal to you if you think strategically because I cannot do that. I will admit it. 😂 I don’t really have an ego. I seriously need your help. Thank you.
Specifically I sent a paper to NATURE and it was rejected and also to Entropy and same thing. What journal is there that would actually print something completely revolutionary and new? But I also need to reach out to researchers and thinkers like these in this video and mentioned in this video…? I talk about the whole theory and I guess people don’t see how it solves the problems? But I need to talk about the whole thing otherwise you cannot see why the assumptions are wrong. It’s literally opening a huge new field which will transform life as we know it forever.
A lot of research will have to be re-interpreted and a lot will have to be redone. We can’t afford that. The problem with an information society is that it makes everyone feel overwhelmed and think alike in an infinite loop, to put it metaphorically. 🤷♀️
It’s like when I used to talk with Francis Crick and he understood many of the things I said and we had a meeting of the minds on many things but he did not understand even what he was saying himself.
Please help me with this. Thank you. I do love you and that’s the point. 🥰
I also tried getting a federal grant and a Templeton grant… so any other ideas would be good.
First of all, I am quite new to all of this so I probably would have no ability to grasp all of the particulars of what you have to say. But there is an underlying theme in your message that I cannot get passed: The need for other people's approval to publish your theories and findings. Maybe it is absurd to suggest releasing the information in anything other than a highly peer reviewed setting, but what is stopping you, other than yourself, from self-publishing your theories and findings on the internet? Again, it may be absurd to suggest, but if you are absolutely convinced of the veracity of your work, should its truth not be self-evident regardless of the platform of its distribution? Your theories could at least gain some exposure. Maybe I am naive, for I am not a professional scientist of any sort, but I do not see what is stopping you other than yourself. There may be other logistical hurdles I am not privy to, but seriously....if you're convinced of the veracity of your work, don't sit on it for two more decades. Self-publish and let your work stand on its own.
Zero interest. Come back when you can actually make a prediction that can be tested.
A descripton of X can never be X ... IIT is useless