Fascinating and sobering but also enlightening and meaningfully peaceful. As someone who has studied Heidegger and the phenomenology of Being the Analytic school of epistemology from Wittgenstein's tradition and works in Machine Learning I am deeply gratified for the sobering legacy of Dr Hubert Dreyfus. As this new era of technocratic domination and dominion we should not only head Heidegger's warning that "technology threatens to entrench itself everywhere" but also celebrate its Promethean liberating ethos but to do so HUMBLY and Without bombast JRJ because the world does not need any more intellectual firepower for war but instead collaborative declarations of peace. Glory to the heroes slava slava slava!
Very sober take on the likely fallacious assumptions AI theorists make. In reality they're HOPING consciousness can emerge from the kind of computation our computers can do, and they assume that our brains did it the same way, but there's no reason to believe either proposition.
I have a set of possibilities before me, my perception of these possibilities is imprecise. I make a choice, my intention causes a course of action in the material world. This creates an expression that I experience, generating another set of imprecise possibilities. This continues ad infinitum.
The fallacy involved here is that computers are not self-organised. They are organised by US. Whereas brains are self-organising. Therefore computers are not conscious in themselves. Because they have no self-identity. Any consciousness they may have is merely an extension of our own. In the same way that scissors are an extension of the hand . So computers are an extension of our brains. There is all the difference in the world between artificially imposed order and naturally emergent order. The computer is a tool. It is the equivalent of what slaves used to be to Aristotle, say. Of no account in themselves except as extensions to the slave-master's will.
What if consciousness is not just the brain? This conversation reminds of the Cartesian pineal gland. Just as Descartes suspected consciousness in one organ, so we’re pursuing the same line of thinking.
"Consciousness" is a group noun. The word stands for all the specific sensations, emotions, and thoughts that we experience. There is no "consciousness" without "contents". The "contents" are electro-chemical events. "Consciousness" is merely inferred from those events.
Excuse me. I know you are just a goofy TH-cam commenter who is LARPing as an intellectual, but what are you trying to say here? Are you saying that the contents of consciousness are caused by electro-chemical events? Because if so, then I have a startling revelation for you: those electro-chemical events are *themselves* part of the contents of consciousness. Also, it is inconceivable that chemical reactions could give rise to consciousness. You literally cannot even begin to fathom how that could happen. Hard problem of consciousness, bro. Deal with it.
Why is consciousness so baffling? Because you thought about asking of it. If it did not exist, why would anyone ask at all. Because you can ask about it and ponder on it, think and postulate, test and formulate -- yet, because we find it emergent on quantum microtubular functionalities, the system's perspective is just as elusive as the quanta themselves. If we can fabricate a machine or program that contains the exact same tract of the human brain and consciousness emerges, then we have an answer. If it does not emerge, we have another answer (albeit unsatisfying), for which more research is required. What there is no room for in this subject, is predisposition. There is room for observation and exploration.
I think it will, but/and that will prove the point that AI cannot produce human consciousness. By definition, whatever it produces will not be human. I am a human and I welcome and accept all that being a human entail, is, includes. I am not trying to escape it.
isn't the answer here just that we have a purpose to reproduce and that gives us a frame of reference, computers don't have don't have their own purpose so no reason to choose this or that?
That might explain our perception. We don't need to observe dark matter to reproduce so we just didn't evolve those faculties. Doesn't explain why you are you and not just a biological automata with your responses and actions.
The fundamental elephant in the room, they are carefully tiptoeing around, is the fact that there is nowhere, and no time, for consciousness to exist- except in the no longer existing past and the not yet existing future. Our "now " awareness is entirely an imaginative construct of memories and best guess predictions.
Consciousness is everywhere. What is unique to humans is ego/mind Letting go of mind leads to natural state AI will not help in this process, only Yoga or similar discipline can help
It proves nothing. The assumption is latent in the proposition yet never outright stated, hence never challenged. The assumption is that, if there is thinking, there must be something that thinks. If there is a deed, there must be a doer. Existentially, we can justify this to some degree, though not in any sense Descartes would recognize. Logically, it is beyond comprehension.
I can't wait to see the day computer becomes conscious and tries to figure out the universe, because a computer will have more Info, They will leave Einstein in the dirt
Laurence Egan computers are stupid, they only know what WE tell them....if we can't explain qualia or 'what it's like' (which is at least closest to the definition of consciousness we can get to), then how can we expect to teach a computer (or build something new but still require some kind of similiar input) awareness or consciousness? That's the hard problem.... we're dealing with seemingly very different nature's of things...
Our consciousness was designed and created by God within His simulation program. Each created being gets a consciousness to give him self awareness within the program that we're all a part of. The consciousness is known as the mind or the spirit of a man. It's just a frequency connected to the program that gives the created being life experiences within the program.
@@godisgreat9749 I have met chosen believers who called themselves atheists who believe what I preached to them from our Creator. Most people who call themselves theists were not chosen believers.
You realize he wrote multiple books and essays on AI and computers after years of discussions with MIT experts right? Your comment reeks of arrogance and presumptuousness...
@@Joeonline26 He uses words like "craziness" or "fallacy" talking about other philosophers and scientists trying to explain consciousness, so I feel absolutely no problems with using the word naive. He clearly hasn't understood Dennett and he has a magalomaniac vision of what consciousness is.
@@thumbloud 1. What's wrong with using the word "fallacy" when talking about other philosophers? The term is literally used to denote when an interlocuter is making an argument that's invalid or inconsistent. Therefore, the term is perfectly appropriate if he sees other philosophers engaging in fallacious reasoning. 2. This was filmed quite a while ago, but the theory that Dennett had at the time wasn't capturing the best way to approach the problem. Dennett has contradicted himself on the consciousness problem over the years and his approach to the consciousness problem has been fine-tined and adjusted over time, thanks to criticisms of people like Dreyfus. 3. Megalomania is a mental illness and unrelated to Dreyfus' comments on the problem of consciousness. Trying to characterize his comments on consciousness as something akin to a mental illness is inappropriate and intellectually dishonest. If you had read any of Dreyfus' work you would know that he never formed a full theory of consciousness. He often said that since we know so little about it trying to form a formal theory to explain its origin/existence/function would be sheer arrogance and/or ignorance. Anything else?
@@Joeonline26 1. What's wrong with using the word "naive" when the main counterargument is "no, it can't be explained"? 2.Yes, I agree, but it wasn't just Dreyfuss's criticizm, by far not. 3. I used the word "megalomania" metaphorically to descrobe an approach in which somebody believes that our egoes, self-awareness, psyche, is so unfathomable, impossible to explain, too complex to even try to tackle the problem. What elsce? Intellectual cowardice.
@@thumbloud 1. I wasn't discussing the use of the word "naïve" from the original commenter, I was referring to YOUR use of the word "fallacy" and saying it was misplaced. You know that and that's why you've conveniently ignored my criticism of your use of this word. Stop being intellectually dishonest. 2. Obviously Dreyfus wasn't the only person to make criticism's. I never suggested he was, so your point is moot. 3. I have a background in clinical psychology and I'm telling you that you have misunderstood what megalomania is. First you tried to use it to characterize Dreyfus' view of consciousness, I pointed out it was wrong, and so now you're trying to say it was just a metaphor. More intellectual dishonesty. Here's a tip for engaging in future conversations of this nature: try to pursue philia sophia (pursuit of wisdom) instead of pursuing philia nikia (pursuit of victory/wisdom). You'll find your conversations to be a lot more fruitful.
Hubert Dreyfus never disappoints
Fascinating and sobering but also enlightening and meaningfully peaceful. As someone who has studied Heidegger and the phenomenology of Being the Analytic school of epistemology from Wittgenstein's tradition and works in Machine Learning I am deeply gratified for the sobering legacy of Dr Hubert Dreyfus. As this new era of technocratic domination and dominion we should not only head Heidegger's warning that "technology threatens to entrench itself everywhere" but also celebrate its Promethean liberating ethos but to do so HUMBLY and Without bombast JRJ because the world does not need any more intellectual firepower for war but instead collaborative declarations of peace. Glory to the heroes slava slava slava!
Very sober take on the likely fallacious assumptions AI theorists make. In reality they're HOPING consciousness can emerge from the kind of computation our computers can do, and they assume that our brains did it the same way, but there's no reason to believe either proposition.
Actually he is giving a very humble and skeptical explanation.
I have a set of possibilities before me, my perception of these
possibilities is imprecise. I make a choice, my intention causes a
course of action in the material world. This creates an expression that I
experience, generating another set of imprecise possibilities. This
continues ad infinitum.
Great arguments, especially that snails pace
Why don't we don't consider the fact that we only know 5% of the matter in existence.
The fallacy involved here is that computers are not self-organised. They are organised by US. Whereas brains are self-organising. Therefore computers are not conscious in themselves. Because they have no self-identity. Any consciousness they may have is merely an extension of our own. In the same way that scissors are an extension of the hand . So computers are an extension of our brains. There is all the difference in the world between artificially imposed order and naturally emergent order. The computer is a tool. It is the equivalent of what slaves used to be to Aristotle, say. Of no account in themselves except as extensions to the slave-master's will.
What if consciousness is not just the brain? This conversation reminds of the Cartesian pineal gland. Just as Descartes suspected consciousness in one organ, so we’re pursuing the same line of thinking.
"Consciousness" is a group noun. The word stands for all the specific sensations, emotions, and thoughts that we experience.
There is no "consciousness" without "contents". The "contents" are electro-chemical events. "Consciousness" is merely inferred from those events.
Excuse me. I know you are just a goofy TH-cam commenter who is LARPing as an intellectual, but what are you trying to say here? Are you saying that the contents of consciousness are caused by electro-chemical events? Because if so, then I have a startling revelation for you: those electro-chemical events are *themselves* part of the contents of consciousness.
Also, it is inconceivable that chemical reactions could give rise to consciousness. You literally cannot even begin to fathom how that could happen. Hard problem of consciousness, bro. Deal with it.
@@randyrichardson6953 what a brutal response)) I like it!
@@randyrichardson6953 Good point. However, just because something seems inconceivable to us, doesn't mean it's impossible or untrue.
Processing of information is itself programmed consciously, not produce consciousness?
Before I've listened... I like his electrifying voice! Does he have anything in the throat or is it the consequences of his deep interest in AI?))
It has always been that way so I suppose not.
@@paulheinrichdietrich9518 It was just a joke :)
@@folexangegeheim I know, just in case...
Does the processing of information in human brain demonstrate conscious programming of brain?
Doesn't illusion require consciousness?
Why is consciousness so baffling? Because you thought about asking of it. If it did not exist, why would anyone ask at all. Because you can ask about it and ponder on it, think and postulate, test and formulate -- yet, because we find it emergent on quantum microtubular functionalities, the system's perspective is just as elusive as the quanta themselves. If we can fabricate a machine or program that contains the exact same tract of the human brain and consciousness emerges, then we have an answer. If it does not emerge, we have another answer (albeit unsatisfying), for which more research is required. What there is no room for in this subject, is predisposition. There is room for observation and exploration.
Are algorithms developed from human consciousness?
Does behavior require the programming of information, or can be reduced to only processing of information?
I bet "the nature of consciousness" turns out to be an unimportant question in AI research.
I think it will, but/and that will prove the point that AI cannot produce human consciousness. By definition, whatever it produces will not be human. I am a human and I welcome and accept all that being a human entail, is, includes. I am not trying to escape it.
isn't the answer here just that we have a purpose to reproduce and that gives us a frame of reference, computers don't have don't have their own purpose so no reason to choose this or that?
That might explain our perception. We don't need to observe dark matter to reproduce so we just didn't evolve those faculties. Doesn't explain why you are you and not just a biological automata with your responses and actions.
Is mechanical behavior programmed? Does programming happen through consciousness?
The fundamental elephant in the room, they are carefully tiptoeing around, is the fact that there is nowhere, and no time, for consciousness to exist- except in the no longer existing past and the not yet existing future. Our "now " awareness is entirely an imaginative construct of memories and best guess predictions.
Can AI be intelligent without learning?
Consciousness is everywhere.
What is unique to humans is ego/mind
Letting go of mind leads to natural state
AI will not help in this process, only Yoga or similar discipline can help
sreekanth chintala go back to India there are no hippies here
Three evidence free statements followed by a false conclusion.
Descartes should have said: ' I Am therefore I think' rather than 'I think therefore I am.'
The destruction of egos/persons and the relations between them is no comfort at all. If that’s just way things are, I might as well be a materialist.
Is consciousness programmed into AI through human construction of AI?
Cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am)-- R. Descartes
A meaningless statement, "I, therefore I". He might as well have said, "Blaaaaaa!".
@@bobaldo2339 You're right. He could only say "Blaaaaa!" if he existed, so that works just as well.
It proves nothing. The assumption is latent in the proposition yet never outright stated, hence never challenged. The assumption is that, if there is thinking, there must be something that thinks. If there is a deed, there must be a doer. Existentially, we can justify this to some degree, though not in any sense Descartes would recognize. Logically, it is beyond comprehension.
Its called the forbin project arrrghhhh help
I can't wait to see the day computer becomes conscious and tries to figure out the universe, because a computer will have more Info, They will leave Einstein in the dirt
Laurence Egan computers are stupid, they only know what WE tell them....if we can't explain qualia or 'what it's like' (which is at least closest to the definition of consciousness we can get to), then how can we expect to teach a computer (or build something new but still require some kind of similiar input) awareness or consciousness? That's the hard problem.... we're dealing with seemingly very different nature's of things...
Our consciousness was designed and created by God within His simulation program. Each created being gets a consciousness to give him self awareness within the program that we're all a part of. The consciousness is known as the mind or the spirit of a man. It's just a frequency connected to the program that gives the created being life experiences within the program.
Secularist will never want to admit that, which is why they try their best to diminish its profoundness
@@godisgreat9749 I have met chosen believers who called themselves atheists who believe what I preached to them from our Creator. Most people who call themselves theists were not chosen believers.
a very naive view of ai...
You realize he wrote multiple books and essays on AI and computers after years of discussions with MIT experts right? Your comment reeks of arrogance and presumptuousness...
@@Joeonline26 He uses words like "craziness" or "fallacy" talking about other philosophers and scientists trying to explain consciousness, so I feel absolutely no problems with using the word naive. He clearly hasn't understood Dennett and he has a magalomaniac vision of what consciousness is.
@@thumbloud 1. What's wrong with using the word "fallacy" when talking about other philosophers? The term is literally used to denote when an interlocuter is making an argument that's invalid or inconsistent. Therefore, the term is perfectly appropriate if he sees other philosophers engaging in fallacious reasoning.
2. This was filmed quite a while ago, but the theory that Dennett had at the time wasn't capturing the best way to approach the problem. Dennett has contradicted himself on the consciousness problem over the years and his approach to the consciousness problem has been fine-tined and adjusted over time, thanks to criticisms of people like Dreyfus.
3. Megalomania is a mental illness and unrelated to Dreyfus' comments on the problem of consciousness. Trying to characterize his comments on consciousness as something akin to a mental illness is inappropriate and intellectually dishonest. If you had read any of Dreyfus' work you would know that he never formed a full theory of consciousness. He often said that since we know so little about it trying to form a formal theory to explain its origin/existence/function would be sheer arrogance and/or ignorance.
Anything else?
@@Joeonline26 1. What's wrong with using the word "naive" when the main counterargument is "no, it can't be explained"? 2.Yes, I agree, but it wasn't just Dreyfuss's criticizm, by far not. 3. I used the word "megalomania" metaphorically to descrobe an approach in which somebody believes that our egoes, self-awareness, psyche, is so unfathomable, impossible to explain, too complex to even try to tackle the problem. What elsce? Intellectual cowardice.
@@thumbloud 1. I wasn't discussing the use of the word "naïve" from the original commenter, I was referring to YOUR use of the word "fallacy" and saying it was misplaced. You know that and that's why you've conveniently ignored my criticism of your use of this word. Stop being intellectually dishonest.
2. Obviously Dreyfus wasn't the only person to make criticism's. I never suggested he was, so your point is moot.
3. I have a background in clinical psychology and I'm telling you that you have misunderstood what megalomania is. First you tried to use it to characterize Dreyfus' view of consciousness, I pointed out it was wrong, and so now you're trying to say it was just a metaphor. More intellectual dishonesty.
Here's a tip for engaging in future conversations of this nature: try to pursue philia sophia (pursuit of wisdom) instead of pursuing philia nikia (pursuit of victory/wisdom). You'll find your conversations to be a lot more fruitful.