Thanks for providing the information about the interviewees in the description. It would be much appreciated if you could provide the year of the interview as well.
Thank you for making these videos. It’s comforting to hear consciousness described in these circumstances such as the Boltzmann brain hypothesis, I never had the perspective though about my information being a product of that initial entropy of the universe though, and that really brought me comfort knowing I can have that macroscopic impact on this system. I’d recently been pondering the arrow of time, and I also feel that time holds the mysteries of consciousness.
I actually used this thought experiment of drawing an exact scheme of human body (including brain) on a large piece of paper. Then take another piece of paper and draw the same body one moment later. Draw the entire timeline of a person getting stubbed in his chest. I was asking myself: will it be immoral to make such drawings? Will there be an actual pain felt, if the drawing is exact and simulating all the body processes exactly? And what is the minimal sequence I could draw to make it actually immoral and painful?
Closer to truth is conscious if I see on TH-cam programs my mind say focus probably I can find some truth so truth is become answer in this show focus is another name to conscious
Por favor escucha, seas quien seas. Es una emergencia y vidas se están perdiendo mientras hablo. Necesito que seas abierto de mente y abierto a la posibilidad de estar equivocado o engañado. ¿Qué implicaría para tí y tu vida si Spinoza y yo tuviésemos razón y el verdadero Dios es todo lo que existe? Dios se creó a sí mismo después de haber existido siempre. Dios quiso dejar de existir para siempre y creó el universo o la vida porque quiso vivir. Tienes tanto todavía por lo que vivir y vivimos por la experiencia, vivimos gracias a Dios y siempre seremos parte de lo que existió en el tiempo eterno. El panteismo es la verdad y no va a dejar de serlo por mucho que se crea. Los humanos somos capaces de entender la naturaleza de Dios. Los humanos somos capaces de entender que existe algo infinitamente más importante que uno mismo. El todo es infinitamente más importante que la parte. Dios es lo más importante que existe porque es lo único que existe. Estoy cansado y necesito descansar. No soy comprendido. Vivo alienado. Vivo incrédulo porque sé quien soy y lo que estoy haciendo por tí. ¿Es posible creer que es imposible estar equivocado? Dios existe y el ateísmo y la religión son malentendidos de la realidad dañinos a Dios perfecto. No puedo decirlo más claro. ¿Quieres malgastar tu vida defendiendo una idea que hace daño a los demás sin ningún argumento? La realidad es lo único que importa y el planeta Tierra está hundiéndose rápidamente porque no hay un control de natalidad y no hay intención de parar el incremento de población constante y exponencial, multiplicando la población sin tener un plan e intentar saber cual es el óptimo número de humanos en el planeta Tierra para su sostenimiento. El planeta Tierra tiene que sobrevivir, esa es nuestra misión. El universo tiene que sobrevivir, esa es la misión de todas las personas inteligentes capaces de entender que todas las vidas importan porque todo forma parte de un equilibrio. Todo es literalmente Tiempo y Espacio transformándose experimentando su propia creación. Dios es increible y si piensas en lo que te he dicho te sentirás increíblemente mejor. Morir ateo es triste y además no tiene sentido. Si no me crees puedes leer a Spinoza que está de acuerdo conmigo. Somos dos ya los que decimos Dios es literalmente todo lo que existe. Cuando una molécula se divide Dios literalmente se divide. La realidad de Dios nos hace humildes. Los humanos somos la especie o forma de vida más avanzada que puede existir porque somos capaces de entender que somos una vida como la de los demás, cada cual a su manera, Dios creó los animales y personas y todo lo demás, y todo es una vida que evoluciona literalmente a medida que nosotros evolucionamos o transformamos. Quién sabe como serán las generaciones futuras. La verdad es el ateísmo es una falacia lógica que asume Dios es la idea religiosa del creador de la creación y concluye erróneamente que el creador no existe porque una idea particular de Dios no existe. Las guerras son absurdas. ¿Por qué se pelea? Vivimos en un mundo sin Dios y las sirenas de emergencia no dejan de sonar. ¡Emergencia! Hay que reaccionar. Hay que parar para hablar. La humanidad tiene que hablar. A Spinoza no le dejaron defender su palabra. Spinoza murió sin defender su palabra. ¿Fue el Corán memorizado?. Se puede saber tanto solo pidiendo la prueba. Para estar tranquilos necesitamos saber, no te quedas tranquilo creyendo, no estás seguro, ¿y si no fuese verdad?, la duda o incertidumbre nos desasosiega. La religión y ateismo son creencias. Los religiosos creen que Dios existe y los ateos creen que Dios no existe. Ninguno sabe que Dios existe porque de la nada no puede ser creado algo. El universo tuvo que ser creado por algo inteligente con absoluta certeza. Entender que fuimos creados y Dios existe es la solución a todos los problemas, el resto se consigue con buenas intenciones. A Dios hay que entenderlo, a la realidad hay que entenderla. Se tiene que entender quien soy. He descubierto que el ateísmo es una falacia lógica que asume Dios es la idea religiosa del creador de la creación y concluye erróneamente que el creador no existe porque una idea particular de Dios no existe. Gracias.
Some really sloppy arguments here. The speaker jumps to the unproven assumption that consciousness is purely computational, ignoring the possibility that it could involve non-computational aspects or emergent properties that aren't captured by algorithms. The thought experiment with the microchip spouse is a reinterpretation of Turing's test with a Chinese room slant, however, the interpretation of Turing's test is way off base. Turing was assessing intelligent behavior, not consciousness. The speaker's arguments also hinge on the assumption of a Big Bang cosmology as the starting point for the universe and consciosuness, both of which are unproven. The latter is a massive leap in faith with no direct evidence linking cosmological initial conditions to subjective experience. Finally, the substrate indifference argument - that consciousness could be simulated with pen and paper - is again, based on the computational theory of mind, which is a contentious and unverified hypothesis. This is not a rigorous argument - it's a series of speculative and unfounded assumptions. Which is all fine, I guess, as long as we're clear that this is speculative philosophy and science fiction rather than hard science.
also later scientists/philosophers/mathematicians/programmers like Koch, Faggin, Frenkel, Kastrup, rejects that idea (of the computational consciousness)
If we built a computer and could program it with consciousness, it would have a causal connection to the initial conditions of the universe via us, in the same way that we have it via our ancestors, or via the cloud of gas and dust the formed the solar system. Everything in the universe does by definition. So I'm not sure what he's trying to say with that.
*"If we built a computer and could program it with consciousness, "* ... With a self-aware consciousness exclusively belonging to an individual, I don't know how that could ever end up as a standalone program. It may be possible to harness someone's existing consciousness and transfer it to a machine (like you see in the movies), but what is it that you are actually harnessing and transferring? How would one harness what cannot be explained, isolated, nor adequately defined? *"it would have a causal connection to the initial conditions of the universe via us, in the same way that we have it via our ancestors, or via the cloud of gas and dust the formed the solar system."* ... Causal connection by proxy? Sounds familiar! Based on that, an argument could be made that "intelligence" could also have a causal connection to the initial conditions of the universe. ... _Intelligence in - intelligence out._
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC >How would one harness what cannot be explained, isolated, nor adequately defined? We may never explain it, sure, but just because we have not yet explained it is not evidence that it can't be explained. You reckon you have an explanation already. Suppose you are correct, what could the insight lead to? Is it something that we could apply practicaly? >... Causal connection by proxy? Just a plain old causal connection. Yes, I think intelligence is information processing, all physical processes are informational processes, and they go all the way back as far into the Big Bang as we can figure out. What is it that is different about A causes B, which causes C, compared to P causes Q which causes Z by proxy? What is it that makes one cause just a cause and another a proxy cause? Is it that non-proxy causes themselves have no cause? I'm not clear how that works.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC What does it mean to "program a computer with consciousness"? Indeed we program a computer with "cognition". There is a difference. You can't transfer consciousness because it is an emergent phenomenon, you can only transfer memories. Whether consciousness emerges or not in a machine is another matter entirely and it is thought that the emergence of consciousness requires a self-organising process that seeks to not just to resist but to transcend the effects of entropy on its substrate. Complex cognition in biology is the result of this process.
*What does it mean to "program a computer with consciousness"? Indeed we program a computer with "cognition". There is a difference."* ... So, you are agreeing with me, right? *"You can't transfer consciousness because it is an emergent phenomenon, you can only transfer memories. "* ... You would need a coherent definition of Consciousness before you can make that type of assertion. *"Whether consciousness emerges or not in a machine is another matter entirely"* ... If a machine "could" be programmed with consciousness, then it most likely can emerge within it as well because it's already established the capacity to demonstrate consciousness. *"and it is thought that the emergence of consciousness requires a self-organising process that seeks to not just to resist but to transcend the effects of entropy on its substrate"* ... Currently, the mechanics of consciousness are completely unknown. It might be the result of a self-organizing process ... or not? And if it is, then the origin of this self-organizing process falls under question.
Theory is not actuallity. For that to know you should know what consciousness for the one that is conscious mean. This is not theory. Blah blah blah....
Every form of LIFE has consciousness, even if it might be very low, like insects, or plants. Computers are dead, they have no consciousness and will never have.
@@jareknowak8712 Yes, plants are conscious. They are in a kind of sleep, but they are aware of their environment. When you treat a plant in your home well,, it will grow, if you neglect the plant it will die sooner or later. Try it...
Aside from *awareness* being a necessary element of consciousness, *pleasure* and *pain* are also prerequisites for consciousness. Machines do not feel pleasure nor pain. Even if you could program a machine to consider a "loss of data" as a _negative effect_ (pain) and the successful completion of a project as a _positive effect_ (pleasure), ... it's all just data ... and no real pain or pleasure is involved. "Pain" can cause you to do things you would never dream of doing just to make it stop. Same goes for pleasure. "Pleasure" can cause you to do things you would never dream of doing just to keep it going. *Value Judgments* are another element of consciousness that a machine can never achieve. Sure, you can program a machine to assign value to things based on a preestablished database of value, but it would only be going by whatever is already programmed into it. *Example:* A machine wouldn't be able to assign a greater value to torn movie ticket stubs that you and your spouse of 40 years used on your very first date. ... To you they are priceless; to a machine they are trash.
@@herrweiss2580 *"Sentimentalism is a form of weakness."* ... One man's weakness is another man's strength. They all get placed in a "value spectrum" and consensus sorts it all out.
Importante to know consciousness are NOT figure out in neurosience so far This guys are showing true evidence about consciousness? NOT. Absolutetly. He keep out how figure out consciousness his sentences about consciousness arent wortheless neurosience.
@@davenchop most of the scientists are working hard to find answer for this question. They seems to have some answers but yet they are to complete the research. I like Sean Carroll to answer this question.
Nothing to see here but hypotheticals of ... Whats and Ifs. All these hypotheticals are academic theories using... Linguistic Verbal Gynmastic ... that never answers the question.
Conscious Action explained Based on the information they capture with their senses, living beings with brains manage a utilitarian mental representation of the conditions that currently take place in their relevant material environment. This Mental Correlate is a kind of “photograph” of what is happening in the Present in the relevant material environment of the Individual, a Mental Correlate that we will call “Reality of the Individual”. Life experience, stored in the brain, allows us to give meaning to what is perceived. At the same time, as Pavlov demonstrated, life experience allows us to project eventual future states of the individual's relevant environment, generating expectations of action. Information from the Past, the Present and an eventual Future is managed by the brain. It is evident that the brain makes a utilitarian distinction between the Past, the Present and the projection of an eventual future. Human language allows us to incorporate into the mental correlate events and entities that are not necessarily part of what happens in the world of matter, which gives an unprecedented “malleability” to the Reality of the Individual. For the unconscious, everything is happening in the Present. When a child, whom I will call Pedrito, listens to the story of Little Red Riding Hood, said entity is integrated into the Reality of the Individual. In turn, for the child, this entity is “very real”; he does not need his eyes to see it to incorporate it into his mental correlate of the relevant environment. Thanks to our particular language, authentic “immaterial and timeless worlds” have a place in the Mental Correlate of the relevant environment. In the first four years of life, the child is immersed in an ocean of words, a cascade of sounds and meanings. At this stage, a child hears between seven thousand and twenty-five thousand words a day, a barrage of information. Many of these words speak of events that occur in the present, in the material world, but others cross the boundaries of time and space. There is no impediment so that, when the words do not find their echo in what is happening at that moment in Pedrito's material environment, these words become threads that weave a segment of the tapestry of the Reality of the Individual. Just as the child's brain grants existence to the young Little Red Riding Hood when the story unfolds before him, similarly, when the voices around him talk about tomorrow and a beach with Pedro, as happens for example when his mother tells him says: -“Pedrito, tomorrow we will go for a walk to the beach”- the child's mind, still in the process of deciphering the mysteries of time, instantly conjures the entity Pedrito, with his feet on the golden sand, in the eternal present of childhood. Although over time a strong association between the entity Pedrito and his body is established in the child's brain, a total fusion between said entity and the child's body can never take place, since for the Unconscious the bodily actions of Pedrito They only take place in the Present, while the entity Pedrito is able to carry out actions in authentic timeless and immaterial worlds. The entity Pedrito is what we call the Being, and we know its action as Conscious Action.
False but nice try, Consciousness is what you call soul but its incorrect definition as you would then have to abide that rule that all living creatures from history like the dinosaurs all the way up until the present day had soul or have souls which is unlikely. The better description or correct measurement is that those entities had or have consciousness or the ability to survive. If you have consciousness or the ability to survive which is consciousness by definition with a basic subtraction hypothetical of consciousness into relation of the ability to exist or survive. What it is is a branch of survival or survival as an abstract composition or disposition arising from complexity to promote survival at a higher level or a higher level of survival as all extensions or elaborate constructs of material substrates are relations to the ability to survive in environment including eyes, hearts, lungs, blood and brains but what they are are complex versions of survival in living matter. As all pieces of material have this survival disposition it creates complexity to promote survival of material and you cannot have survival without a material subject. The difference with consciousness is that it is an abstract version of it because of the nature of complexity in the brain the disposition itself is realised as abstract version of survival. Without a consciousness in a human because of the nature of complexity inside the brain you will not survive or exist and you will not be able to function or partake in the system itself of survival. Its an evolution of survival as abstract idea or function used to make survival relevant in an existing system or entity and its why dinosaurs had consciousness so that survival itself becomes easier or it can reach its potential. This is why if you yourself switch off consciousness the chances of you surviving without help decrease if it is switched off for extended periods of time. The soul is an old definition and it lacks considerations historically with regards to survival of life including dinosaur and other life. Conscious entity or agent is the true and only real definition because of the extended considerations to other. Its a usual mistake made by most ignorant positions.
What your asking the true question is an old one, why do you exist? If consciousness is a requirement of survival itself or to exist which there is a subtle difference in definition then what your asking is why do you exist if consciousness is a requirement of survival not exisitence.
Its more than tool for survival it is survival in abstract form but you cannot understand why it is so except to realise that it is needed to exist in a complex structure or stemming from brain as I realise that first without a brain consciousness cannot exist and then as a result you cant exist or survive without consciousness as it is a requirement of survival. You have to realise that it is an extension of the will or ability of material substance to survive but as an abstract matrix so it can have some degrees of freedom.
It's strange seeing an otherwise pretty smart guy acting like some goofball that just believes everything. Consciousness is a feature of life, so any talk of conscious computers is nonsense. Consciousness without a living self is meaningless. I mean, what's the difference between a conscious rock and a non-conscious rock? (I'm talking to you David Chalmers)
its not only a feature of life but it is survival as an abstract form. The power of the brain or a system with enough complexity can generate abstract realisation and also have different levels of consciousness depending on that structure, shape or size. Its linked to the ability of that particular system or structure to and for the ability to survive as our consciousness is generated from a large brain its quite safe to assume that without it you wouldn't exist and as consciousness is an emergent property of the brain for us you would struggle to survive or continue without.
You could class it as an emergent generation of survival as abstract form from a system which all moving extensions or material attributes or parts are geared for survival of that whole. The only difference is that the other extensions or moving parts are physical and the consciousness is abstract its disposition or function is abstraction in essence but stemming from physical matter. The disposition is crucial into which how or why it should be directed to go a particular trajectory which is continuation of material matter by disposition including abstract formation or elaborations from it. Survival of consciousness or consciousness of survival.
Dinosaurs had consciousness and it was needed because survival itself became a lot more relevant on land. Its not just a human trait but its also historical in nature the ability of an entity to survive in habitat. Humans tend to look at consciousness as a human mode of survival but it actually is very ancient or old, it just changes form or shape in complexity to try and create more relevance in survival itse;f.
@@MasterofOne-zl6ur I appreciate your thoughtful and intelligent addition to the discussion. I don't disagree with any of it, I just have a different way of looking at the idea of consciousness. As I said in my original comment, consciousness is there for the benefit of the self, and a self can only exist as a living organism. The self is a physical phenomenon, it is the physical organism itself. A single living cell is a self and has a limited amount of awareness and all of the higher brain functions are layered on top of this base, so without the living self there would be nothing to experience and use the conscious functions of the brain.
"What Things are Conscious?" This is an incoherrent question because Consciousness is NOT a material thing, not part of the physical world.. This obsession to push Consciousness under the umbrella of physical laws or physical effects, as defined through the lenses of our LIMITED physical senses, exposes deep hatred of the idea of the possibility of the existence of a loving God despite the fact that the truth about our origin is still unknown to hastily rule out spiritual existence as if they know.... ... Materialists even called religion as destructive when it was religion that has promoted love and peace that created civilizations. There is no ancient civilization that has no God or Gods, fyi... ..they ignore the truth that mankind had no God at the start where barbarism, cannibalism, slavery, or man's inhumanity to man had no boundaries, when only the strong and the fittest can survive (the laws of the jungle) and were only minimized when men started to believe in God... ...and the reason why Consciousness was targeted to be nothing but just an illusion is because it has undeniable supernatural qualities such as the free will to believe and the power to be aware that physical matter does not have as slaves of physical laws. These supernatural qualities is more than enough good reason NOT TO RULE OUT the possibility of the existence SUPERNATURAL ORIGIN... ...and, of course, there are imperfections in understanding the unknown Creator, but these imperfections are negligible COMPARED to a world without faith in God that could spell DOOMSDAY with evil greedy Godless people running around... ...now, hypocritically, Material Science has ruled out the possibility of Supernatural Existence just for lack of proof, yet they are now entertaining Quantum Physics which is a product of "Uncertainty Principle" - another word for "We really DO NOT KNOW" that renders quantum physics as the PHYSICS OF I DO NOT KNOWS... ..yet these Materialists are not even embarrassed for being hypocrites. They are willing to stoop too low just to maintain their addiction to gov. grants and subsidies coming from people's taxes, ruining the future of generations in the process with their fake sciences... They screamed on top of their lungs that "they can be MORAL without GOD !" but when life turns sour, pockets turn empty, or temper snaps, the true ugly color emerges.... sigh..
Um, you know, right?, ok, you know, uh, right?, you know. Somebody should coach this person, almost unlistenable. He sounds like a child speaking, hoping to get his point across, you know, and not terribly confident, right? His ideas are not great either.
Agreed. WTF is this guy talking about? He sounds like a salesman or something, like a used-car salesman. And then after several minutes of largely incomprehensible come-on, he declares that the burden is now on me, to prove him wrong or something. And then winds up with some statement that consciousness needs to be irreversible. Maybe that's the deepest shite out there going, as far as speculations on the unfathomable nature of consciousness. Or maybe it's outright nothing. Just a bunch of fast talk, which it definitely had the verbal rhythms of....
Thanks for providing the information about the interviewees in the description. It would be much appreciated if you could provide the year of the interview as well.
Scott is great!
Amazing insight, thanks you both
Knowing that you don't know anything is the greatest wisdom
-socrates
The wave function exists as a Planck field angular motion excitations, quantum mechanics doesn't operate in a vacuum.
Thank you for making these videos. It’s comforting to hear consciousness described in these circumstances such as the Boltzmann brain hypothesis, I never had the perspective though about my information being a product of that initial entropy of the universe though, and that really brought me comfort knowing I can have that macroscopic impact on this system. I’d recently been pondering the arrow of time, and I also feel that time holds the mysteries of consciousness.
Excellent interview RLK. Scott Aaronson is great. He made me reflect and question my view.
I actually used this thought experiment of drawing an exact scheme of human body (including brain) on a large piece of paper. Then take another piece of paper and draw the same body one moment later. Draw the entire timeline of a person getting stubbed in his chest. I was asking myself: will it be immoral to make such drawings? Will there be an actual pain felt, if the drawing is exact and simulating all the body processes exactly? And what is the minimal sequence I could draw to make it actually immoral and painful?
Love it. But didn't buy the irreversibility argument (4:30).
Closer to truth is conscious if I see on TH-cam programs my mind say focus probably I can find some truth so truth is become answer in this show focus is another name to conscious
OMG my Ex... Chip in the brain explains it all!
another thing physics has taught us is that we don't know squat about reality
Answer is "YES TO ALL". Emotions are not one of the ingredients of consciousness.
everything in physical nature has smallest measure of consciousness, not human awareness?
My Wicker basket
Por favor escucha, seas quien seas. Es una emergencia y vidas se están perdiendo mientras hablo. Necesito que seas abierto de mente y abierto a la posibilidad de estar equivocado o engañado. ¿Qué implicaría para tí y tu vida si Spinoza y yo tuviésemos razón y el verdadero Dios es todo lo que existe? Dios se creó a sí mismo después de haber existido siempre. Dios quiso dejar de existir para siempre y creó el universo o la vida porque quiso vivir. Tienes tanto todavía por lo que vivir y vivimos por la experiencia, vivimos gracias a Dios y siempre seremos parte de lo que existió en el tiempo eterno. El panteismo es la verdad y no va a dejar de serlo por mucho que se crea. Los humanos somos capaces de entender la naturaleza de Dios. Los humanos somos capaces de entender que existe algo infinitamente más importante que uno mismo. El todo es infinitamente más importante que la parte. Dios es lo más importante que existe porque es lo único que existe. Estoy cansado y necesito descansar. No soy comprendido. Vivo alienado. Vivo incrédulo porque sé quien soy y lo que estoy haciendo por tí. ¿Es posible creer que es imposible estar equivocado? Dios existe y el ateísmo y la religión son malentendidos de la realidad dañinos a Dios perfecto. No puedo decirlo más claro. ¿Quieres malgastar tu vida defendiendo una idea que hace daño a los demás sin ningún argumento? La realidad es lo único que importa y el planeta Tierra está hundiéndose rápidamente porque no hay un control de natalidad y no hay intención de parar el incremento de población constante y exponencial, multiplicando la población sin tener un plan e intentar saber cual es el óptimo número de humanos en el planeta Tierra para su sostenimiento. El planeta Tierra tiene que sobrevivir, esa es nuestra misión. El universo tiene que sobrevivir, esa es la misión de todas las personas inteligentes capaces de entender que todas las vidas importan porque todo forma parte de un equilibrio. Todo es literalmente Tiempo y Espacio transformándose experimentando su propia creación. Dios es increible y si piensas en lo que te he dicho te sentirás increíblemente mejor. Morir ateo es triste y además no tiene sentido. Si no me crees puedes leer a Spinoza que está de acuerdo conmigo. Somos dos ya los que decimos Dios es literalmente todo lo que existe. Cuando una molécula se divide Dios literalmente se divide. La realidad de Dios nos hace humildes. Los humanos somos la especie o forma de vida más avanzada que puede existir porque somos capaces de entender que somos una vida como la de los demás, cada cual a su manera, Dios creó los animales y personas y todo lo demás, y todo es una vida que evoluciona literalmente a medida que nosotros evolucionamos o transformamos. Quién sabe como serán las generaciones futuras. La verdad es el ateísmo es una falacia lógica que asume Dios es la idea religiosa del creador de la creación y concluye erróneamente que el creador no existe porque una idea particular de Dios no existe. Las guerras son absurdas. ¿Por qué se pelea? Vivimos en un mundo sin Dios y las sirenas de emergencia no dejan de sonar. ¡Emergencia! Hay que reaccionar. Hay que parar para hablar. La humanidad tiene que hablar. A Spinoza no le dejaron defender su palabra. Spinoza murió sin defender su palabra. ¿Fue el Corán memorizado?. Se puede saber tanto solo pidiendo la prueba. Para estar tranquilos necesitamos saber, no te quedas tranquilo creyendo, no estás seguro, ¿y si no fuese verdad?, la duda o incertidumbre nos desasosiega. La religión y ateismo son creencias. Los religiosos creen que Dios existe y los ateos creen que Dios no existe. Ninguno sabe que Dios existe porque de la nada no puede ser creado algo. El universo tuvo que ser creado por algo inteligente con absoluta certeza. Entender que fuimos creados y Dios existe es la solución a todos los problemas, el resto se consigue con buenas intenciones. A Dios hay que entenderlo, a la realidad hay que entenderla. Se tiene que entender quien soy. He descubierto que el ateísmo es una falacia lógica que asume Dios es la idea religiosa del creador de la creación y concluye erróneamente que el creador no existe porque una idea particular de Dios no existe. Gracias.
Consciousness is the thinger, not a thing, so no things are conscious
Some really sloppy arguments here.
The speaker jumps to the unproven assumption that consciousness is purely computational, ignoring the possibility that it could involve non-computational aspects or emergent properties that aren't captured by algorithms.
The thought experiment with the microchip spouse is a reinterpretation of Turing's test with a Chinese room slant, however, the interpretation of Turing's test is way off base. Turing was assessing intelligent behavior, not consciousness.
The speaker's arguments also hinge on the assumption of a Big Bang cosmology as the starting point for the universe and consciosuness, both of which are unproven. The latter is a massive leap in faith with no direct evidence linking cosmological initial conditions to subjective experience.
Finally, the substrate indifference argument - that consciousness could be simulated with pen and paper - is again, based on the computational theory of mind, which is a contentious and unverified hypothesis.
This is not a rigorous argument - it's a series of speculative and unfounded assumptions. Which is all fine, I guess, as long as we're clear that this is speculative philosophy and science fiction rather than hard science.
also later scientists/philosophers/mathematicians/programmers like Koch, Faggin, Frenkel, Kastrup, rejects that idea (of the computational consciousness)
Ensemble and Endurance == Learning
If we built a computer and could program it with consciousness, it would have a causal connection to the initial conditions of the universe via us, in the same way that we have it via our ancestors, or via the cloud of gas and dust the formed the solar system. Everything in the universe does by definition. So I'm not sure what he's trying to say with that.
*"If we built a computer and could program it with consciousness, "*
... With a self-aware consciousness exclusively belonging to an individual, I don't know how that could ever end up as a standalone program. It may be possible to harness someone's existing consciousness and transfer it to a machine (like you see in the movies), but what is it that you are actually harnessing and transferring? How would one harness what cannot be explained, isolated, nor adequately defined?
*"it would have a causal connection to the initial conditions of the universe via us, in the same way that we have it via our ancestors, or via the cloud of gas and dust the formed the solar system."*
... Causal connection by proxy? Sounds familiar! Based on that, an argument could be made that "intelligence" could also have a causal connection to the initial conditions of the universe. ... _Intelligence in - intelligence out._
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC >How would one harness what cannot be explained, isolated, nor adequately defined?
We may never explain it, sure, but just because we have not yet explained it is not evidence that it can't be explained.
You reckon you have an explanation already. Suppose you are correct, what could the insight lead to? Is it something that we could apply practicaly?
>... Causal connection by proxy?
Just a plain old causal connection. Yes, I think intelligence is information processing, all physical processes are informational processes, and they go all the way back as far into the Big Bang as we can figure out.
What is it that is different about A causes B, which causes C, compared to P causes Q which causes Z by proxy?
What is it that makes one cause just a cause and another a proxy cause? Is it that non-proxy causes themselves have no cause? I'm not clear how that works.
@simonhibbs887 That's exactly whay I thought too!
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC What does it mean to "program a computer with consciousness"? Indeed we program a computer with "cognition". There is a difference. You can't transfer consciousness because it is an emergent phenomenon, you can only transfer memories. Whether consciousness emerges or not in a machine is another matter entirely and it is thought that the emergence of consciousness requires a self-organising process that seeks to not just to resist but to transcend the effects of entropy on its substrate. Complex cognition in biology is the result of this process.
*What does it mean to "program a computer with consciousness"? Indeed we program a computer with "cognition". There is a difference."*
... So, you are agreeing with me, right?
*"You can't transfer consciousness because it is an emergent phenomenon, you can only transfer memories. "*
... You would need a coherent definition of Consciousness before you can make that type of assertion.
*"Whether consciousness emerges or not in a machine is another matter entirely"*
... If a machine "could" be programmed with consciousness, then it most likely can emerge within it as well because it's already established the capacity to demonstrate consciousness.
*"and it is thought that the emergence of consciousness requires a self-organising process that seeks to not just to resist but to transcend the effects of entropy on its substrate"*
... Currently, the mechanics of consciousness are completely unknown. It might be the result of a self-organizing process ... or not? And if it is, then the origin of this self-organizing process falls under question.
There are MANY types of conscious processes which are all forms of ONE energy.
He's like when someone talks a lot without saying anything meaningful.
Theory is not actuallity. For that to know you should know what consciousness for the one that is conscious mean. This is not theory. Blah blah blah....
Every form of LIFE has consciousness, even if it might be very low, like insects, or plants. Computers are dead, they have no consciousness and will never have.
Plants ??
@@jareknowak8712 Yes, plants are conscious. They are in a kind of sleep, but they are aware of their environment. When you treat a plant in your home well,, it will grow, if you neglect the plant it will die sooner or later. Try it...
@@emanuelstanley2523
It is the result of many chemical reactions that occur automatically, there is no room for consciousness there.
We are the flesh in the machine
What if computers are actually a form of LIFE?
My favorite thinker 😀
Aside from *awareness* being a necessary element of consciousness, *pleasure* and *pain* are also prerequisites for consciousness. Machines do not feel pleasure nor pain. Even if you could program a machine to consider a "loss of data" as a _negative effect_ (pain) and the successful completion of a project as a _positive effect_ (pleasure), ... it's all just data ... and no real pain or pleasure is involved.
"Pain" can cause you to do things you would never dream of doing just to make it stop. Same goes for pleasure. "Pleasure" can cause you to do things you would never dream of doing just to keep it going.
*Value Judgments* are another element of consciousness that a machine can never achieve. Sure, you can program a machine to assign value to things based on a preestablished database of value, but it would only be going by whatever is already programmed into it.
*Example:* A machine wouldn't be able to assign a greater value to torn movie ticket stubs that you and your spouse of 40 years used on your very first date. ... To you they are priceless; to a machine they are trash.
Priceless stubs?
Sentimentalism is a form of weakness.
@@herrweiss2580 *"Sentimentalism is a form of weakness."*
... One man's weakness is another man's strength. They all get placed in a "value spectrum" and consensus sorts it all out.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC
I must confess I still keep the picture of the girl in the 9th grade that I had a crush on.
I am weak.
Importante to know consciousness are NOT figure out in neurosience so far This guys are showing true evidence about consciousness? NOT. Absolutetly. He keep out how figure out consciousness his sentences about consciousness arent wortheless neurosience.
Anything that responds to flesh through reflection..
Pain drives self awareness i think
Thanks Mr.Scott Aaronson ...for accepting you dont know...
😂
🙄 You know, you know, you know, ok, you know, ok, you know, you know 💀💀💀
never answered the question did he
@@davenchop no he never came closer to question...leave alone closer to truth....lol...
@@davenchop most of the scientists are working hard to find answer for this question. They seems to have some answers but yet they are to complete the research. I like Sean Carroll to answer this question.
@@sujok-acupuncture9246 agreed carroll is very smart and easy to understand
Nothing to see here but hypotheticals of ... Whats and Ifs. All these hypotheticals are academic theories using... Linguistic Verbal Gynmastic ... that never answers the question.
Conscious Action explained
Based on the information they capture with their senses, living beings with brains manage a utilitarian mental representation of the conditions that currently take place in their relevant material environment. This Mental Correlate is a kind of “photograph” of what is happening in the Present in the relevant material environment of the Individual, a Mental Correlate that we will call “Reality of the Individual”.
Life experience, stored in the brain, allows us to give meaning to what is perceived. At the same time, as Pavlov demonstrated, life experience allows us to project eventual future states of the individual's relevant environment, generating expectations of action.
Information from the Past, the Present and an eventual Future is managed by the brain. It is evident that the brain makes a utilitarian distinction between the Past, the Present and the projection of an eventual future.
Human language allows us to incorporate into the mental correlate events and entities that are not necessarily part of what happens in the world of matter, which gives an unprecedented “malleability” to the Reality of the Individual. For the unconscious, everything is happening in the Present. When a child, whom I will call Pedrito, listens to the story of Little Red Riding Hood, said entity is integrated into the Reality of the Individual. In turn, for the child, this entity is “very real”; he does not need his eyes to see it to incorporate it into his mental correlate of the relevant environment. Thanks to our particular language, authentic “immaterial and timeless worlds” have a place in the Mental Correlate of the relevant environment.
In the first four years of life, the child is immersed in an ocean of words, a cascade of sounds and meanings. At this stage, a child hears between seven thousand and twenty-five thousand words a day, a barrage of information. Many of these words speak of events that occur in the present, in the material world, but others cross the boundaries of time and space. There is no impediment so that, when the words do not find their echo in what is happening at that moment in Pedrito's material environment, these words become threads that weave a segment of the tapestry of the Reality of the Individual.
Just as the child's brain grants existence to the young Little Red Riding Hood when the story unfolds before him, similarly, when the voices around him talk about tomorrow and a beach with Pedro, as happens for example when his mother tells him says: -“Pedrito, tomorrow we will go for a walk to the beach”- the child's mind, still in the process of deciphering the mysteries of time, instantly conjures the entity Pedrito, with his feet on the golden sand, in the eternal present of childhood.
Although over time a strong association between the entity Pedrito and his body is established in the child's brain, a total fusion between said entity and the child's body can never take place, since for the Unconscious the bodily actions of Pedrito They only take place in the Present, while the entity Pedrito is able to carry out actions in authentic timeless and immaterial worlds. The entity Pedrito is what we call the Being, and we know its action as Conscious Action.
You say that as if it's a bad thing. Every theory in science, or theorem in mathematics started out as just mental gymnastics.
I'm convinced you feel like having a more convincing approach. Let me guess: God? /s
No one knows how exactly why AI does what it does . Pretty much like conscious. Something to think about.
They know what it does, however it has millions of neurons, that is what makes them unpredictable
We are spirit souls and conciousness emarges from soul , part and parcel of God Sri Krishna.
Jargon
False but nice try, Consciousness is what you call soul but its incorrect definition as you would then have to abide that rule that all living creatures from history like the dinosaurs all the way up until the present day had soul or have souls which is unlikely. The better description or correct measurement is that those entities had or have consciousness or the ability to survive. If you have consciousness or the ability to survive which is consciousness by definition with a basic subtraction hypothetical of consciousness into relation of the ability to exist or survive. What it is is a branch of survival or survival as an abstract composition or disposition arising from complexity to promote survival at a higher level or a higher level of survival as all extensions or elaborate constructs of material substrates are relations to the ability to survive in environment including eyes, hearts, lungs, blood and brains but what they are are complex versions of survival in living matter. As all pieces of material have this survival disposition it creates complexity to promote survival of material and you cannot have survival without a material subject. The difference with consciousness is that it is an abstract version of it because of the nature of complexity in the brain the disposition itself is realised as abstract version of survival. Without a consciousness in a human because of the nature of complexity inside the brain you will not survive or exist and you will not be able to function or partake in the system itself of survival.
Its an evolution of survival as abstract idea or function used to make survival relevant in an existing system or entity and its why dinosaurs had consciousness so that survival itself becomes easier or it can reach its potential. This is why if you yourself switch off consciousness the chances of you surviving without help decrease if it is switched off for extended periods of time.
The soul is an old definition and it lacks considerations historically with regards to survival of life including dinosaur and other life. Conscious entity or agent is the true and only real definition because of the extended considerations to other. Its a usual mistake made by most ignorant positions.
@@MasterofOne-zl6ur
Only humans have the capacity for conscience as in sol which is an existential intelligence that enables artificial selection..
What your asking the true question is an old one, why do you exist? If consciousness is a requirement of survival itself or to exist which there is a subtle difference in definition then what your asking is why do you exist if consciousness is a requirement of survival not exisitence.
Its more than tool for survival it is survival in abstract form but you cannot understand why it is so except to realise that it is needed to exist in a complex structure or stemming from brain as I realise that first without a brain consciousness cannot exist and then as a result you cant exist or survive without consciousness as it is a requirement of survival. You have to realise that it is an extension of the will or ability of material substance to survive but as an abstract matrix so it can have some degrees of freedom.
Sometimes I think I have a microchip in my skull.
It's strange seeing an otherwise pretty smart guy acting like some goofball that just believes everything. Consciousness is a feature of life, so any talk of conscious computers is nonsense. Consciousness without a living self is meaningless. I mean, what's the difference between a conscious rock and a non-conscious rock? (I'm talking to you David Chalmers)
its not only a feature of life but it is survival as an abstract form. The power of the brain or a system with enough complexity can generate abstract realisation and also have different levels of consciousness depending on that structure, shape or size. Its linked to the ability of that particular system or structure to and for the ability to survive as our consciousness is generated from a large brain its quite safe to assume that without it you wouldn't exist and as consciousness is an emergent property of the brain for us you would struggle to survive or continue without.
You could class it as an emergent generation of survival as abstract form from a system which all moving extensions or material attributes or parts are geared for survival of that whole. The only difference is that the other extensions or moving parts are physical and the consciousness is abstract its disposition or function is abstraction in essence but stemming from physical matter. The disposition is crucial into which how or why it should be directed to go a particular trajectory which is continuation of material matter by disposition including abstract formation or elaborations from it.
Survival of consciousness or consciousness of survival.
Dinosaurs had consciousness and it was needed because survival itself became a lot more relevant on land. Its not just a human trait but its also historical in nature the ability of an entity to survive in habitat. Humans tend to look at consciousness as a human mode of survival but it actually is very ancient or old, it just changes form or shape in complexity to try and create more relevance in survival itse;f.
@@MasterofOne-zl6ur I appreciate your thoughtful and intelligent addition to the discussion. I don't disagree with any of it, I just have a different way of looking at the idea of consciousness. As I said in my original comment, consciousness is there for the benefit of the self, and a self can only exist as a living organism. The self is a physical phenomenon, it is the physical organism itself. A single living cell is a self and has a limited amount of awareness and all of the higher brain functions are layered on top of this base, so without the living self there would be nothing to experience and use the conscious functions of the brain.
"Pretty smart" lmfao this guy would run laps around most of us.
Robert laugh exactly like b'ut"thead and bevies characters.
Things is NOT conscious,
Only Living Beings can be Conscious.
👍👍👍😃😃👏👏👏
Scott is dressed like its still 2007
The only people who struggle over “What things are conscious?” are godless heathens.
So most sensible people then?
Define god please. Then we can discuss about godless.
"What Things are Conscious?"
This is an incoherrent question because Consciousness is NOT a material thing, not part of the physical world..
This obsession to push Consciousness under the umbrella of physical laws or physical effects, as defined through the lenses of our LIMITED physical senses, exposes deep hatred of the idea of the possibility of the existence of a loving God despite the fact that the truth about our origin is still unknown to hastily rule out spiritual existence as if they know....
... Materialists even called religion as destructive when it was religion that has promoted love and peace that created civilizations. There is no ancient civilization that has no God or Gods, fyi...
..they ignore the truth that mankind had no God at the start where barbarism, cannibalism, slavery, or man's inhumanity to man had no boundaries, when only the strong and the fittest can survive (the laws of the jungle) and were only minimized when men started to believe in God...
...and the reason why Consciousness was targeted to be nothing but just an illusion is because it has undeniable supernatural qualities such as the free will to believe and the power to be aware that physical matter does not have as slaves of physical laws. These supernatural qualities is more than enough good reason NOT TO RULE OUT the possibility of the existence SUPERNATURAL ORIGIN...
...and, of course, there are imperfections in understanding the unknown Creator, but these imperfections are negligible COMPARED to a world without faith in God that could spell DOOMSDAY with evil greedy Godless people running around...
...now, hypocritically, Material Science has ruled out the possibility of Supernatural Existence just for lack of proof, yet they are now entertaining Quantum Physics which is a product of "Uncertainty Principle" - another word for "We really DO NOT KNOW" that renders quantum physics as the PHYSICS OF I DO NOT KNOWS...
..yet these Materialists are not even embarrassed for being hypocrites. They are willing to stoop too low just to maintain their addiction to gov. grants and subsidies coming from people's taxes, ruining the future of generations in the process with their fake sciences...
They screamed on top of their lungs that "they can be MORAL without GOD !" but when life turns sour, pockets turn empty, or temper snaps, the true ugly color emerges.... sigh..
People can be MORAL without GOD, at least in the way GOD is thought of by all the organized religions. I know that for a fact.
@@squeakeththewheel ..exemption to the general rule can NEVER be the General Rule to risk the future of humanity under it...
Um, you know, right?, ok, you know, uh, right?, you know.
Somebody should coach this person, almost unlistenable. He sounds like a child speaking, hoping to get his point across, you know, and not terribly confident, right?
His ideas are not great either.
Agreed. WTF is this guy talking about? He sounds like a salesman or something, like a used-car salesman. And then after several minutes of largely incomprehensible come-on, he declares that the burden is now on me, to prove him wrong or something. And then winds up with some statement that consciousness needs to be irreversible. Maybe that's the deepest shite out there going, as far as speculations on the unfathomable nature of consciousness. Or maybe it's outright nothing. Just a bunch of fast talk, which it definitely had the verbal rhythms of....
You should look up whom you're talking trash about before making yourself look like an absolute asshat for the world to see